PCIT CHANDIGARH vs M/S SBS BIOTECH
- Court
- High Court of Himachal Pradesh
1 [ 2026:HHC:36928 ]
IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH
AT SHIMLA
High Court of H.P.
OMP (M) No.501 of 2025
In ITA No______ of 2025
Reserved on: 18.08.2026
Pronounced on: 01.09.2026
__________________________________________________________
Principal Commissioner of Income Tax-1
....Applicant/Appellant
Versus
M/s SBS Biotech Unit-II
…Non-Applicant/Respondent
Coram:
Hon’ble Mr. Justice Vivek Singh Thakur, Judge
Hon’ble Mr. Justice Ranjan Sharma, Judge
1
Whether approved for reporting? Yes.
For the Applicant/ M/s Neeraj Sharma and Ishaan
Appellant: Kashyap, Advocates.
For the Non-Applicant Mr. Deepak Vyas, Advocate
Respondent: [Through Video-Conferencing]
& Ms. Soma Thakur, Advocate.
Ranjan Sharma, Judge
Applicant-Principal Commissioner of Income
Tax-1, has come up before this Court, seeking
condonation of 31 days of delay in filing the
accompanying appeal [yet to be registered] against
the orders dated 25.02.2025 passed by Learned
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Chandigarh Bench
“B”, Chandigarh, in ITA No.413/Chd/2024 titled
1
Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment?
::: Downloaded on - 01/09/2026 15:15:37 :::CIS
2 [ 2026:HHC:36928 ]
as
SBS Biotech Unit-II v. The Pr. CIT-1 Chandigarh
High Court of H.P.
with the prayer to register the accompanying appeal
and hear the appeal on merits.
2. In the instant application , the Applicant-
Principal Commissioner of Income Tax-1 has set
up a case seeking condonation of 31 days of delay
in filing the accompanying appeal with the plea
that Learned Income Tax Appellate Tribunal [ referred
to as ITAI herein] passed an order on 25.02.2025
and copy of said order was received by the applicant
on 06.06.2025. It is averred that the limitation
period for 120 days for filing accompanying appeal
expired on 04.10.2025. It is averred in Para-2 and
Para-3 of the application that delay in filing the
accompanying appeal was on account of the fact,
that the case records was with Income Tax Officer,
Parwanoo; and opinion for preferring the appeal
was sought; and the said opinion was thereafter
forwarded for approval to the competent authority
-Applicant-Principal Commissioner of Income Tax-1,
Chandigarh; and upon approval, instructions were
issued to the Standing Counsel for the Department
::: Downloaded on - 01/09/2026 15:15:37 :::CIS
3 [ 2026:HHC:36928 ]
to draft the accompanying appeal; the Office
and
High Court of H.P.
of the authorized signatory who signs memorandum
of appeal is at Chandigarh; and there were also
festival breaks during this period. In this backdrop
it was averred that delay is neither wilful nor
intentional but due to the aforesaid reasons and
therefore, it was prayed that delay in filing the
accompanying appeal may be condoned and the
appeal be registered, heard and decided on merits.
2(i). Pursuant to the issuance of notice, by
this Court, on the application for condonation of
delay on 31.12.2025, the Non-applicant/Respondent-
M/s SBS Biotech Unit-II, had appeared through
counsel on 18.05.2026 and as prayed, the Non-
applicant/Respondent was granted four weeks’ time
to file reply. The matter was listed on 02.07.2026
when, no reply was filed and further time for filing
the reply, as prayed, was enlarged by three days
and the reply was accordingly filed on the affidavit
dated 02.07.2026.
2(ii). In reply , the Non-applicant/Respondent-
M/s SBS Biotech Unit-II, Nahan, opposed the claim
::: Downloaded on - 01/09/2026 15:15:37 :::CIS
4 [ 2026:HHC:36928 ]
for condonation of delay on the ground that the
High Court of H.P.
applicant has failed to show any sufficient cause
and delay was intentional and wilful. It was further
averred that no day-to-day explanation has been
given for the delay for the entire period in the
application. It was averred that as per judgment
of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of Shivamma
[dead] by LRs v. Karnataka Housing Hoard &
Ors. [2025 INSC 1104], delay is required to be
explained for the entire period from the date the
limitation began till filing of the application/appeal
and the application does not indicate the said delay.
It was further averred that procedural delays taken
by the Applicant-Revenue Authorities cannot be a
ground for condoning the delay. Reliance was placed
on the judgment in the case of State of Odisha
vs Managing Committee of Namrata Girls High
School [2026 INSC 148] to assert that utterly
lethargy, laxity and indolence cannot be a ground
for condoning the delay. Reliance was also placed
on the judgment passed by the Hon’ble Supreme
Court in the case of Pathapati Subba Reddy
::: Downloaded on - 01/09/2026 15:15:37 :::CIS
5 [ 2026:HHC:36928 ]
(died) vs The Special Duty Collector [2024
INSC 286] to assert that though cause of substantial
High Court of H.P.
justice has to be advanced but the same cannot
be used to defeat the substantial law of limitation
and that too when no sufficient cause was made
out and delay was inordinate and was a result
of negligence and due diligence was absent in
the instant case. In Para-5 of Reply-Affidavit, the
Non-applicant/Respondent has made an attempt to
refer to the merits of the case, with the plea that
after going through the merits of the case and
order which is sought to be assailed in
the appeal, the appeal leaves an academic issue
only on merits and therefore, prayer was made to
dismiss the appeal seeking condonation of delay.
2(iii). In the rejoinder , the Applicant-Principal
Commissioner of Income Tax-1, has denied the
averments made by the Non-applicant/ Respondent
in the Reply-Affidavit and has reiterated the contents
of application with the prayer to condone the delay.
It is further reiterated that the explanation offered
reveals sufficient cause and earnest bonafide efforts
::: Downloaded on - 01/09/2026 15:15:37 :::CIS
6 [ 2026:HHC:36928 ]
were made the Departmental Authorities
inter se
High Court of H.P.
to file the Reply within time but on account of
the reasons spelt out in Para-2 of the application
and reiterated in Para-2 of the Rejoinder, the
accompanying appeal could not be filed within the
limitation period and the delay is neither wilful
nor intentional nor due to negligence or want of
due diligence by the Applicant-Authorities. It is
averred in the Rejoinder that the reliance placed on
judgment of Shivamma [supra] is distinguishable
on facts, for the reason, that the subject matter in
the said case related to massive delay of 3966
days which was marred by an administrative lapse
without any explanation and sufficient cause for
the said delay. Applicant-Authorities have further
relied upon the judgment by the Hon’ble Supreme
Court in case of Esha Bhattacharjee vs Managing
Committee of Raghunathpur Nafar Academy
[(2013) 12 SCC 649] to assert that once the delay
was explained and sufficient cause was shown
and delay was of short duration and was free
from negligence or tardy attitude then, the same
::: Downloaded on - 01/09/2026 15:15:37 :::CIS
7 [ 2026:HHC:36928 ]
deserves to be condoned. Reliance was also placed
on the judgment in the case of Collector, Land
High Court of H.P.
Acquisition, Anantnag vs Mst. Katiji [(1987) 2
SCC 107] and the judgment in the case of N.
Balakrishnan v. M. Krishnamurthy [(1998) 7
SCC 123] to assert that the substantive rights of
Applicant cannot be destroyed when the Authorities
had exercised diligence and had made all earnest
efforts but the sincerest efforts also resulted in
delay. So far as the reliance placed by the Non-
Applicant/Respondent in Managing Committee of
Namrata Girls High School [supra], it was stated
in the Rejoinder that the aforesaid judgment was
distinguishable on facts, for the reason, that in the
said case order of Tribunal was assailed before the
High Court after a lapse of 8 years and even the
Applicant seeking re-call of order of the Tribunal
was also filed belatedly after a delay of 291 days
and thus the cumulative period of delay in the
said case was in excess of about 11 years and in
this backdrop, it was averred in the Rejoinder that
the reliance on the judgments was misplaced. In
::: Downloaded on - 01/09/2026 15:15:37 :::CIS
8 [ 2026:HHC:36928 ]
Para-6 of the Rejoinder, the Applicant-Authorities
High Court of H.P.
have specifically stated that the Non-applicant
/Respondent has no right to enter into the merits
of case while adjudicating an application for
condonation of delay, on the ground that “merit
hunting at the stage of seeking condonation of
delay” was impermissible. It was averred that once
the impugned order dated 25.02.2025 passed by
the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal [ITAI] which
was sought to be assailed in accompanying appeal
was reversed/set aside then, the same shall lead
to revival of the earlier orders against the Non-
applicant/Respondent. It was averred that mixed
questions of facts and law were involved in the
accompanying appeal, and therefore, the application
for condonation of delay was genuine, so as to
avoid multiplicity of litigation in the instant case
and to secure the revenue of Applicant-Authorities.
Other contents of Reply-Affidavit were denied with
the prayer to condone the delay by accepting the
application filed by the Applicant-Authorities.
3. Heard, M/s Neeraj Sharma and Ishaan
::: Downloaded on - 01/09/2026 15:15:37 :::CIS
9 [ 2026:HHC:36928 ]
Kashyap, Learned Counsel, for the applicant and
High Court of H.P.
Mr. Deepak Vyas [through Video-Conferencing]
and Ms. Soma Thakur, Learned Counsel, for the
non-applicant/respondent.
ANALYSIS:
4. Taking into account the entirety of
facts and circumstances, this Court is of the
considered view that the claim of the Applicant-
Authorities for seeking condonation of 31 days of
delay in filing the accompanying appeal, assailing
the order dated 25.02.2025 passed by Learned
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Chandigarh, deserves
to be allowed, for the following reasons:-
4(i). Perusal of the application and the rejoinder
filed by the Applicant-Authorities establish that the
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal passed the order
dated 25.02.2025 and copy of order was received
by the Applicant-Authorities on 06.06.2025. Though
a period of 120 days of limitation for filing the
appeal expired on 04.10.2025, but the appeal could
not be filed within the said period. The Applicant
-Authorities have given an explanation by showing
::: Downloaded on - 01/09/2026 15:15:37 :::CIS
10 [ 2026:HHC:36928 ]
sufficient cause for not filing the accompanying
High Court of H.P.
appeal within the limitation period. Perusal of
the contents of application reveals that non-filing
of appeal was cumulatively, for the reason, that
the delay in filing the accompanying appeal was
on account of the fact that the case records was
with Income Tax Officer, Parwanoo; and opinion
for preferring the appeal was sought; and the
said opinion was thereafter forwarded for approval
to competent authority i.e. the Applicant-Principal
Commissioner of Income Tax-1, Chandigarh; and
upon approval, instructions were issued to the
Standing Counsel for the Department to draft the
accompanying appeal; and the Office of authorized
signatory who signs the memorandum of appeal
is at Chandigarh; and there were also festival
breaks during this period; and therefore, the delay
is neither willful nor intentional but is due to the
aforesaid reasons.
Cumulative reasons, as spelt out in the
application and the rejoinder establish reasonable
explanation, sufficient cause, revealing bonafide and
::: Downloaded on - 01/09/2026 15:15:37 :::CIS
11 [ 2026:HHC:36928 ]
earnest which led to the delay. The aforesaid reasons,
High Court of H.P.
as spelt out cannot in any manner be treated
to be an excuse for condoning the delay. The
application and rejoinder indicate that the Applicant-
Authorities were sensitive towards their civil rights
and remedies and they have asserted their right,
diligently, bonafide and with promptitude. It is not
a case where the Applicant-Authorities have failed
to show diligence but the material on record including
explanation and sufficient cause reveal that the
Applicant-Authorities had been diligent in pursuing
the matter for filing the accompanying appeal but
for the delay. Explanation and the cause outlined
in the application and rejoinder spell out diligence
on the part of Applicant-Authorities, which inspires
confidence of this Court.
4(ii). It is not a case of an inordinate delay
but is a case where nominal and small days of
31 days had occurred in filing the accompanying
appeal and the delay is diligently on account of
the reasons spelt out in the application and is
reiterated in the rejoinder, as referred to above.
::: Downloaded on - 01/09/2026 15:15:37 :::CIS
12 [ 2026:HHC:36928 ]
Rules of limitation cannot destroy the substantial
High Court of H.P.
rights of the Applicant-Authorities and liberal and
purposely approach has to be adopted to advance
a cause of justice. If the remedy is reduced to a
husk by procedural excess, the right becomes a
casualty and therefore, plea of the non-applicant-
respondent cannot sustain. Even Section 260 A (2A)
of the Income Tax Act neither expressly provides
that appellate authority (High Court) shall become
functus officio after the expiry of 120 days nor
does Section 260A (2A) expressly provides for the
“restrictive expressions” [“but not thereafter” or “not
exceeding”] then, in such an eventuality, appellate
court retains the power to exercise discretion to
condone delay, subject to the legal compliance of
“sufficient cause” in the light of the broad principles
mandated by the Honble Supreme Court in the
case of Jittu Yadav vs State of Chahatisgarh
and Others, Criminal Appeal No 2911 of 2026,
decided on 27.05.2026 ; and that too, in a case,
where the explanation offered establishes sufficient
cause and the delay, if any, was bonafide and
::: Downloaded on - 01/09/2026 15:15:37 :::CIS
13 [ 2026:HHC:36928 ]
had crept in despite the due diligence, sensitiveness
High Court of H.P.
of the Applicant-Authorities in pursuing their rights
promptly.
4(iii). Plea and attempt of the Non-applicant/
Respondent in touching the merits of controversy
by contending that the Applicant-Authorities have
no case on merits cannot be of any assistance to
the Non-Applicant/Respondent for the reason, that
as per the mandate of Hon’ble Supreme Court in
the case of Shivamma [supra] entering the merits
of the matter, while deciding the application for
condonation of delay, shall certainly prematurely
infringe and violate the principle of fairness in
adjudication of the controversy and merit hunting
cannot be permitted at the stage of deciding an
application for condonation of delay. Once the
Applicant-Authorities have established promptitude,
bonafide efforts and have rendered the explanation
revealing sufficient cause and once it is not a
case of inaction or negligence and casualness then,
the plea for condonation of a nominal delay of
31 days and that too when, the explanation for
::: Downloaded on - 01/09/2026 15:15:37 :::CIS
14 [ 2026:HHC:36928 ]
entire delay has been diligently spelt out in
High Court of H.P.
the application and rejoinder, then, the plea for
condonation of delay has merit.
4(iv). Reliance placed by the Non-applicant/
Respondent in the reply on the judgment in the
case of Shivamma [supra] is misconceived, for the
reason, that the same is distinguishable wherein
massive delay of 3966 days which was due to
sheer negligence at the administrative levels and
same cannot be invoked in the instant case, where
delay is nominal relating to 31 days only. Further,
reliance placed by the Non-Applicant/Respondent
in the Reply in the case of Managing Committee
of Namrata Girls High School [supra] is
misplaced, as the factual matrix in the aforesaid
case related to a cumulative delay of about 11
years, whereas, the delay in present application
is 31 days only. Nothing has been placed on record
by way of Sur-rejoinder by the Non-Applicant/
Respondent to assert and establish that the plea
of the Applicant-Authorities and the stand taken
in rejoinder goes un-rebutted, which reveals that
::: Downloaded on - 01/09/2026 15:15:37 :::CIS
15 [ 2026:HHC:36928 ]
delay in filing accompanying appeal was bonafide
High Court of H.P.
as is borne out from the explanation establishing
sequence.
CONCLUSION:
5. Considering the application and rejoinder
once the explanation and the reasons for the entire
period from the starting point the limitation began
till filing of application on 04.11.2025, [alongwith
accompanying appeal] reveal bonafide, diligence,
promptitude and sensitiveness of the applicant-
authorities in pursuing its right and remedy and
coupled with the fact that the delay of 31 days
is nominal and the fact that the remedy cannot
be reduced to as husk so as to result in casualty
due to procedural excess ; and the right of appeal
cannot be ordinarily defeated on technical grounds
when, the statute does not expressly provides for
strict exclusion of Limitation Act ; coupled with the
fact that even Section 260 A (2A) of the Income
Tax Act neither expressly provides that the appellate
authority (High Court) shall become functus officio
after the expiry of 120 days nor does this Section
::: Downloaded on - 01/09/2026 15:15:37 :::CIS
16 [ 2026:HHC:36928 ]
[Section 260A (2A)] expressly provides for “restrictive
High Court of H.P.
expressions” [“but not thereafter” or “not exceeding”]
in terms of the broad principles mandated by the
Honble Supreme Court in the case of Jittu Yadav
(supra) and therefore, the objection(s) set out
by the Non-applicant/Respondent herein are turned
down/negated. Consequently, the prayer of Applicant
-Authorities seeking condonation of delay of a
short and nominal duration of 31 days in filing
accompanying appeal, merits acceptance, in facts
of instant case.
6. No other point was raised/argued.
DIRECTIONS:
7. In view of above discussion and for
reasons recorded hereinabove, the instant application
is allowed, in the following terms:
(i) Instant application i.e. OMP (M) No.
501 of 2025, titled as Principal
Commissioner of Income Tax-1 vs M/s
SBS Biotech Unit-II, is allowed;
(ii) Delay of 31 days in filing accompanying
appeal is condoned;
(iii) As a sequel to the directions (i) and
(ii) above, the accompanying appeal
::: Downloaded on - 01/09/2026 15:15:37 :::CIS
17 [ 2026:HHC:36928 ]
be registered and listed for admission
hereinafter; and
High Court of H.P.
(iv) Parties are left to bear respective costs.
In aforesaid terms, the instant application
stands disposed of, accordingly.
(Vivek Singh Thakur)
Judge
(Ranjan Sharma)
Judge
September 01, 2026
(Bhardwaj)
::: Downloaded on - 01/09/2026 15:15:37 :::CIS