Facts of the Case

The Revenue filed appeals against a common order dated 15.03.2019 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal relating to Assessment Years 2009–10 and 2014–15.

The certified copy of the ITAT order was received on 11.04.2019. However, the appeals were filed only in May 2022, resulting in a delay of approximately three years.

Earlier appeals were filed but withdrawn on 12.02.2021 due to technical defects, with liberty to file fresh appeals. Subsequently, fresh appeals were filed after significant delay, along with affidavits explaining procedural steps taken by the department.

Issues Involved

  1. Whether the delay of nearly three years in filing appeals under Section 260A can be condoned.
  2. Whether the Revenue established “sufficient cause” under Section 5 of the Limitation Act.
  3. Whether government departments are entitled to liberal treatment in condonation of delay matters.

Petitioner’s Arguments (Revenue)

  • The delay occurred due to administrative procedures and movement of files within the department.
  • The Court should adopt a liberal approach considering that the appellant is a government authority.
  • The delay explanation was supported through affidavits detailing chronological steps taken.
  • Benefit of COVID-19 limitation extension should be granted

Respondent’s Arguments (Assessee)

  • No formal application for condonation of delay was filed initially.
  • The delay was inordinate and unexplained.
  • The Revenue failed to demonstrate sufficient cause for delay.
  • The explanation provided was merely procedural and not legally sufficient.

Court Findings / Order

  • The delay of about three years was inordinate and unexplained.
  • The affidavits merely listed dates and procedural steps, which amounted to an “excuse” rather than a valid “explanation.”
  • Government departments are not entitled to automatic condonation of delay.
  • No sufficient cause was shown that prevented timely filing of appeals.
  • COVID-19 limitation extension was not applicable since limitation had already expired before the pandemic period.
  • Even earlier appeals were filed beyond limitation and lacked proper explanation.

Final Order

  • Applications for condonation of delay dismissed
  • Appeals dismissed as time-barred

Important Clarifications by the Court

  • “Sufficient cause” must be real, reasonable, and beyond control—not routine administrative delay.
  • Liberal interpretation cannot override limitation law.
  • Government departments must act diligently; procedural inefficiency is not a valid ground.
  • Distinction between “explanation” and “excuse” is crucial in delay condonation cases.
  • Expiry of limitation creates a valuable right in favour of the opposite party.

Link to download the order -  https://delhihighcourt.nic.in/app/showFileJudgment/60812122023ITA3712022_184320.pdf

Disclaimer

This content is shared strictly for general information and knowledge purposes only. Readers should independently verify the information from reliable sources. It is not intended to provide legal, professional, or advisory guidance. The author and the organisation disclaim all liability arising from the use of this content. The material has been prepared with the assistance of AI tools.