The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT), Delhi Bench has dismissed a batch of six income tax appeals filed by an assessee for Assessment Years (AYs) 2011–12 to 2016–17, refusing to condone a 170-day delay in filing them. 

The Bench comprising Madhumita Roy (Judicial Member) and Brajesh Kumar Singh (Accountant Member) has observed that mere statements cannot justify the bona fides of the company. The genuineness of the conduct and contentions made by the assessee is found to be doubtful.

In its application for condonation of delay, the assessee blamed the late filing on the alleged professional negligence of its erstwhile Chartered Accountant (CA), who purportedly failed to represent the company and file timely appeals. It further cited delay in retrieving company records and appointing a new CA; involvement of ex-directors in civil and criminal proceedings, including a High Court suit against a bank over helicopter auctions under the SARFAESI Act; and health complications suffered by a director, including hospitalization for pneumonia and cardiac treatment.

The appeals were eventually filed on June 3, 2024, long after the limitation period ended on December 17, 2023.

Rejecting the plea, the Tribunal observed that the assessee failed to produce any documentary evidence substantiating its claims.

“The fact of taking action against the Chartered Accountant or appointment of a new one, though stated, has not been corroborated by any evidence,” the Bench noted.

It held that the cited legal disputes and personal hardships were irrelevant to the delay in filing tax appeals and could not constitute “sufficient cause” under the law. The order further stated:

“Mere statements cannot justify the bona fides of the company… The genuineness of the conduct and contentions made by the assessee is found to be doubtful.”

The Tribunal also highlighted that the assessee’s persistent non-appearance before all tax authorities weakened the credibility of its explanation.

Concluding that no reasonable cause was demonstrated, the ITAT declined to condone the 170-day delay and dismissed all six appeals as barred by limitation. The ruling was made applicable to mutatis mutandis across all connected appeals, given their identical facts and grounds.

Case Details

Case Title: Summit Aviation Versus DCIT

Case No.: ITA Nos.2829 to 2834/Del/2024

Date: 17.10.2025

Counsel For  Appellant: None

Counsel For Respondent: Chanchal Meena

Read More: CBDT Issues SOP for Assessing Capital Gains on Joint Development Agreements