The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT), Mumbai, has refused to condone a delay of more than ten years in an appeal seeking exemption for a ₹60 lakh One-Time Benefit received from the Board of Control for Cricket in India (BCCI).
The bench of Justice (Retd.) C.V. Bhadang (President) and Prabhash Shankar (Accountant Member) that waiting for a favourable judicial ruling does not constitute “sufficient cause” for filing a belated appeal. It consequently dismissed the appeal without examining whether the amount received from the BCCI was taxable.
The assessee, an individual and former cricketer, filed his income-tax return for Assessment Year 2013-14 declaring a total income of ₹1.25 crore. The return was processed by the Centralised Processing Centre under Section 143(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, through an intimation dated October 30, 2014.
Buy Now: Income tax E-Compilation – August 2026
The declared income included ₹60 lakh received from the BCCI as a One-Time Benefit.
According to the assessee, the BCCI grants such benefits to former first-class and international cricketers after their retirement in appreciation of their contribution to the game. The amount payable is determined on the basis of objective criteria, including the number of Test matches or One-Day Internationals played by the cricketer.
At the relevant time, however, the assessee took a conservative approach and offered the amount to tax because there was uncertainty about its taxability and the status of the BCCI’s registration under Section 12A of the Income Tax Act.
The income declared in the return was accepted by the tax department, and no demand was raised under the Section 143(1) intimation.
The assessee subsequently filed an appeal against the 2014 intimation after a delay of approximately ten years and nine months.
He contended that the Bombay High Court’s order dated February 18, 2025, had finally settled the dispute concerning the BCCI’s registration under Section 12A. According to him, the effect of that ruling was that the BCCI’s registration continued to remain valid.
The assessee maintained that this development materially affected the taxability of the ₹60 lakh receipt. He relied upon the exclusion contained in Section 56 and argued that a sum received from an institution registered under Section 12A would not be treated as taxable income under the relevant provision.
It was further argued that the assessee had originally offered the amount to tax under the mistaken belief that the BCCI’s registration was under dispute and that the statutory exclusion might not be available.
The delay was also attributed to the time taken to trace old records and engage the services of a senior chartered accountant after the Bombay High Court’s decision came to the notice of the assessee’s tax adviser.
The Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) declined to condone the delay and dismissed the appeal at the threshold.
The appellate authority observed that an appeal against the intimation should ordinarily have been filed within 30 days. As the intimation was issued on October 30, 2014, the appeal was required to be filed by November 28, 2014.
The CIT(A) found that the assessee had voluntarily included the ₹60 lakh in his return and accepted the subsequent intimation without objection. No revised return was filed, and the taxability of the receipt was not challenged before any forum for more than ten years.
It was held that a mistaken understanding of the BCCI’s registration status, the pendency of litigation involving the BCCI, difficulties in locating records and the time taken to consult professionals did not sufficiently explain the extraordinary delay.
The CIT(A) further observed that ignorance of law, incorrect legal advice or an assumption about the possible outcome of another proceeding could not automatically constitute sufficient cause under Section 249(3) of the Income Tax Act.
Before the ITAT, the assessee reiterated that the One-Time Benefit was not taxable. Reliance was placed on the Tribunal’s decisions involving former cricketers Kapil Dev and Maninder Singh, in which similar one-time receipts were reportedly held exempt under Section 56(2)(vii).
The Revenue opposed the request for condonation, arguing that the delay was inordinate and that no sufficient cause had been established.
It maintained that the assessee had consciously offered the amount to tax, accepted the processing of his return and remained inactive for more than a decade. The later availability of decisions favourable to other taxpayers could not revive an appellate remedy that had become time-barred.
The Tribunal noted that the assessee himself had included the ₹60 lakh in his income and that the department had accepted the returned income in 2014. He neither revised the return nor questioned the taxability of the amount before any authority for more than ten years.
The ITAT found that the appeal was initiated only after subsequent judicial developments appeared to support the assessee’s claim.
According to the Tribunal, this indicated that the assessee had waited for a favourable ruling and then attempted to take advantage of it. Judicial precedents have consistently held that such conduct does not amount to sufficient cause for condonation of an inordinate delay.
The Bench referred to decisions holding that a litigant cannot accept an order, allow it to attain finality and subsequently seek to reopen the matter merely because a favourable judgment is delivered in another case.
Allowing such appeals, the Tribunal observed, would unsettle orders that had attained finality and defeat the statutory limitation prescribed for initiating appellate proceedings.
Explaining the scope of “sufficient cause,” the ITAT observed that limitation provisions may be applied pragmatically to advance substantial justice and prevent a miscarriage of justice. A delay should not automatically be presumed to be deliberate.
However, delay cannot be condoned merely on grounds of sympathy or compassion. The person seeking condonation must demonstrate a genuine and adequate reason that prevented the filing of the appeal within the prescribed period.
Circumstances such as serious illness, the death of a relevant person, problems faced by counsel or a bona fide belief supported by evidence may, depending on the facts, constitute sufficient cause.
On the other hand, negligence, prolonged inaction, lack of bona fides, recklessness, oversight, dilatory tactics or a decision to wait for favourable judgments ordinarily cannot justify condonation.
The Tribunal added that the explanation for the delay should generally be supported by a properly executed affidavit and relevant documentary evidence.
Membership Required to Access Case Details & Order Copy
To view the complete Case Details and Download Order Copy, you must have an active membership. Please subscribe to continue.
