An appeal filed after inordinate, unexplained delay without a condonation application is liable to dismissal.

For AY 2012–13, the Assessing Officer treated ₹2.71 crore received as share capital and share premium as unexplained cash credit under Section 68 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, and assessed the company’s total income at ₹2,71,24,875

The Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) affirmed the assessment on 4 April 2017

The company appealed to the ITAT on 13 August 2024. The Tribunal dismissed the appeal as time-barred, recording a delay of 2,628 days, no application for condonation, and unrectified defects despite opportunities

The company then appealed to the High Court, challenging the Tribunal’s order and raising, among other matters, the delay, alleged lack of notice, and the Section 68 addition

1. Whether the Tribunal erred in dismissing the appeal as time-barred where the delay was not supported by an application for condonation and the appeal’s defects remained unrectified.

2. Whether the High Court should interfere with the Tribunal’s order on the grounds that the proceedings were allegedly ex parte or that the underlying Section 68 addition was unsustainable.

A party seeking condonation of delay must establish “sufficient cause”; absent such cause, the delay need not be condoned.

The Court also considered the Tribunal’s findings on the delay, the absence of a condonation application, the unrectified defects, and the company’s participation in the proceedings through adjournment applications.

The Tribunal had recorded that the appeal was filed 2,628 days late, that no condonation application had been filed, and that defects persisted despite multiple opportunities.

The High Court rejected the claim that the Tribunal proceeding was unknown to the company, noting that its directors had filed several adjournment applications; it also relied on the Tribunal’s recorded concern about the differing signatures on applications attributed to one director.

In the absence of any explanation establishing sufficient cause, and given the company’s conduct, the Court found no basis to interfere with the Tribunal’s dismissal. It did not adjudicate the merits of the Section 68 addition.

The connected stay application was also dismissed, with no order as to costs.