ORDER : Suddala Chalapathi Rao, J. This application is filed to condone the delay of (800) days in filing the appeal against the order, dt.26.09.2022 in ITA.No.27/Hyd/2022 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal Hyderabad, Benches “B”, Hyderabad (for short ‘the Tribunal’) for the assessment year 2017-18. 2. The reasons mentioned by the petitioner-Company in the affidavit filed in support of this application, is that a former employee of the appellant failed to inform about passing of the orders by the Tribunal and sending the said file to their Auditor, to his successor. That, only in the month of August, 2024, upon enquiry regarding the progress of the appeal, it came to light that the appeal papers were untraceable in the auditor’s office, and subsequently, the auditor informed that the papers had been inadvertently misplaced in his office and, therefore, could not be forwarded to the appellant for obtaining the signature of the authorized signatory, due to which, there is delay in filing of the appeal. It is further contended that the delay is neither willful nor wanton, but it had occurred due to the above stated facts and circumstances, and prayed to condone the delay in exercise of its powers under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963. 3. The respondents/Revenue filed counter inter alia stating that the present application is filed with abnormal delay and no sufficient cause and reasons are mentioned, and that the explanation given by the petitioner/appellant, that a former employee, who was looking after the tax appeals, resigned without informing her successor as to the sending of appeal papers to the auditor and that the said papers were misplaced in the auditor’s office, and only in the month of August, 2024, they could trace the appeal papers, is nothing but an afterthought, and the said reasons are routine and stock reasons. 4. It is further stated that the impugned order is a common order for the assessment years 2016-17 and 2017- 18, and the petitioner/appellant having filed a writ petition vide WP.No.21770 of 2024 before this Court for the assessment year 2016-17, now cannot contend that the previous employee has not informed about the said file to the successor. 5. 4. It is further stated that the impugned order is a common order for the assessment years 2016-17 and 2017- 18, and the petitioner/appellant having filed a writ petition vide WP.No.21770 of 2024 before this Court for the assessment year 2016-17, now cannot contend that the previous employee has not informed about the said file to the successor. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner/appellant, while reiterating the averments in the affidavit filed in support of this application, placed reliance on the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Collector Land Acquisition, Anantnag and Others v. M/s Katiji & Others, 167 ITR 471 = (1987) 2 SCC 107 and prayed for condonation of delay in preferring the appeal. 6. Per contra, Sri N.Praveen Reddy, learned Senior Standing Counsel for Income Tax appearing for respondents submitted that the delay of (800) days sought to be condoned is inordinate and the reasons mentioned in the application does not entitle the petitioner/appellant for condonation of such abnormal and inordinate delay. 7. As seen from the record, admittedly, the judgment in the underlying Income Tax Appeal was passed on 26.09.2022, and the present appeal was filed only on 11.03.2025 i.e., with a delay of almost (29) months and reasons mentioned in the affidavit filed in support of the application are not satisfactory for the reason that the petitioner/appellant having preferred a writ petition in respect of the assessment year 2016-17 against the common order passed for the assessment years 2016-17 and 2017-18, did not choose to file appeal for the assessment year 2017-18, within the prescribed period of time. As such, in our considered opinion, the petitioner/appellant has not shown any justifiable grounds for condoning the delay. 8. Further, the decision relied upon by the petitioner/appellant in Katiji ’s case (supra) is distinguishable, in the light of the decisions rendered by the Apex Court in Pathapati Subba Reddy (Died) by Legal Representatives & Others v. Speciay Deputy Collector (LA) , [(2024) 12 Supreme Court Cases 336] and Estate Officer, Haryana Urban Development Authority & Another v. Gopi Chand Atreja , [(2019) 4 Supreme Court Cases 612] 9. In the Katiji ’s case (supra), the Hon’ble Supreme Court, on the principle of equality and fairness, held that no discrimination should be made merely because State is seeking condonation of delay. In the Katiji ’s case (supra), the Hon’ble Supreme Court, on the principle of equality and fairness, held that no discrimination should be made merely because State is seeking condonation of delay. Contrary thereto, in Pathapati Subba Reddy (Died) ’s case(supra), the Apex Court held that condonation of delay cannot be granted on equitable considerations or on grounds of hardship, and that a right or remedy not exercised or availed within the prescribed period or for a prolonged period, must come to an end or cease to exist. Similarly, in Gopi Chand Atreja ’s case(supra), the Apex Court while observing that the appellant’s officers in charge of legal cell, failed to discharge their duties promptly and with due diligence, despite availability of all facilities and infrastructures, held that the delay was not sufficiently explained. 10. In view of the above judicial precedents of the Ho’ble Supreme Court, we are of the considered view that the petitioner/appellant has not made out any grounds for condoning the delay of (800) days in preferring the appeal, and thus, the interlocutory application is liable to be rejected. 11. Accordingly, the Interlocutory Application vide IA.No.2 of 2025 is dismissed. Consequently, the ITTA stands rejected. As a sequel thereto, miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand dismissed.