Pr. Commissioner Of Income Tax -4 , Delhi vs Axis Max Life Insurance Ltd

Court
Delhi High Court

$~2
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Date of decision: 12.10.2026

# CNR No. DLHC011107652025
+ ITA 798/2026
PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX -4 , DELHI
.....Appellant
Through: Mr. Gaurav Gupta, SSC, Mr.
Shivendra Singh, JSC, Mr.
Yojesh Pareek, JSC, Mr.
Shamindra Kumar Dey,
Advocates.
versus
AXIS MAX LIFE INSURANCE LTD .....Respondent
Through: Mr. Himanshu Shekhar Sinha
with Mr. Prashant
meharchandani and Mr.
Jainendra Singh Kataria,
Advocates.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUBRAMONIUM PRASAD
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE RENU BHATNAGAR
JUDGMENT (ORAL)

CM APPL. 69614/2026 ( Delay in filing )
1. This is an application filed under Section 260A(2A) of the
Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter “the Act”) read with Section 5 of
the Limitation Act, 1963, seeking condonation of delay of 20 days in
filing the appeal.
2. The present appeal has been filed against the order dated
04.06.2025 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Bench “E”,
New Delhi (hereinafter “ITAT”) in I.T.A. Nos. 5213 & 1562/Del/2024
Signature Not Verified
HARIOM SINGH KIRMOLIYA
ITA 798/2026 Page 1 of 7

21.10.2026 16:16

for Assessment Year 2017-18.
3. Section 260A(2)(a) of the Act provides that an appeal against an
order of the ITAT is to be filed within 120 days from the date on
which the order appealed against is received by the assessee or by the
Principal Chief Commissioner or Chief Commissioner or Principal
Commissioner or Commissioner.
4. The present appeal has been filed with a delay of 20 days. The
application for condonation of delay states that the certified copy of
the order dated 04.06.2025 was received on 11.07.2025, whereafter,
following the due procedure, the competent authority decided to assail
the order and approval for filing the appeal was granted on
28.11.2025, and the papers were handed over to the Senior Standing
Counsel. The appeal was filed on 29.11.2025.
5. It is stated that the appeal was prepared immediately after the
approval was received, was then forwarded to the concerned charge
for signing and verification, and was handed back to counsel for filing
in November 2025.
6. Issue Notice
7. Learned counsel for the respondent-assessee on advance service
accepts the notice and states that it is now settled law that the period
of limitation is to be reckoned from the date of pronouncement of the
order and not from the date on which the papers are received.
8. He also states that the delay of 20 days has not been explained,
that the approval itself was received after the last date for filing, and
that it is the duty of the appellant to explain each day’s delay.
9. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for the Revenue
Signature Not Verified
HARIOM SINGH KIRMOLIYA
ITA 798/2026 Page 2 of 7

21.10.2026 16:16

justifies the delay, stating that the State has always been diligent in
pursuing the matter.
10. It is pertinent to mention that Section 260A(2A) of the Act
empowers this Court to admit an appeal even after the expiry of the
period of 120 days, if it is satisfied that there was sufficient cause for
not filing the same within that period.
11. It is well settled that, while condoning delay, a justice-oriented
approach must be preferred over technicalities, but sufficient cause
must be shown so as to prevent a party from resorting to dilatory
tactics or abusing the judicial process.
12. The Apex Court in Shivamma (Dead) by LRs. v. Karnataka
Housing Board & Ors . , 2025 SCC OnLine SC 1969 (decided on
12.09.2025), has observed that pragmatism over pedantism is
sometimes necessary, even where it may appear liberal or
magnanimous, and that the expression “sufficient cause” should be
given a liberal construction so as to advance substantial justice.
13. The Apex Court in Esha Bhattacharjee v. Managing
Committee of Raghunathpur Nafar Academy , (2013) 12 SCC 649,
after examining a number of judgments, has summarised the
principles as under:-
“ 21. From the aforesaid authorities the principles
that can broadly be culled out are:
(i) There should be a liberal, pragmatic, justice-
oriented, non-pedantic approach while dealing with
an application for condonation of delay, for the
courts are not supposed to legalise injustice but are
obliged to remove injustice.
(ii) The terms “sufficient cause” should be
Signature Not Verified
HARIOM SINGH KIRMOLIYA
ITA 798/2026 Page 3 of 7

21.10.2026 16:16

understood in their proper spirit, philosophy and
purpose regard being had to the fact that these terms
are basically elastic and are to be applied in proper
perspective to the obtaining fact-situation.
(iii) Substantial justice being paramount and pivotal
the technical considerations should not be given
undue and uncalled for emphasis.
(iv) No presumption can be attached to deliberate
causation of delay but, gross negligence on the part
of the counsel or litigant is to be taken note of.
(v) Lack of bona fides imputable to a party seeking
condonation of delay is a significant and relevant
fact.
(vi) It is to be kept in mind that adherence to strict
proof should not affect public justice and cause
public mischief because the courts are required to
be vigilant so that in the ultimate eventuate there is
no real failure of justice.
(vii) The concept of liberal approach has to
encapsulate the conception of reasonableness and it
cannot be allowed a totally unfettered free play.
(viii) There is a distinction between inordinate
delay and a delay of short duration or few days, for
to the former doctrine of prejudice is attracted
whereas to the latter it may not be attracted. That
apart, the first one warrants strict approach
whereas the second calls for a liberal delineation.
(ix) The conduct, behaviour and attitude of a party
relating to its inaction or negligence are relevant
factors to be taken into consideration. It is so as the
fundamental principle is that the courts are required
to weigh the scale of balance of justice in respect of
both parties and the said principle cannot be given a
total go by in the name of liberal approach.
(x) If the explanation offered is concocted or the
grounds urged in the application are fanciful, the
courts should be vigilant not to expose the other side
unnecessarily to face such a litigation.
Signature Not Verified
HARIOM SINGH KIRMOLIYA
ITA 798/2026 Page 4 of 7

21.10.2026 16:16

(xi) It is to be borne in mind that no one gets away
with fraud, misrepresentation or interpolation by
taking recourse to the technicalities of law of
limitation.
(xii) The entire gamut of facts are to be carefully
scrutinised and the approach should be based on the
paradigm of judicial discretion which is founded on
objective reasoning and not on individual
perception.
(xiii) The State or a public body or an entity
representing a collective cause should be given some
acceptable latitude.”


14. A perusal of the judgment shows that “sufficient cause” must be
construed so as to advance substantial justice and further sufficient
cause is a question of fact, depending on the facts and circumstances
of each case, it cannot be reduced to a straitjacket formula. The period
of delay is a very important circumstance to be considered.
15. It is well settled that, ordinarily, Courts have been liberal while
considering delay by the State.There are a plethora of judgments
which state that delay on the part of the Government is often
occasioned by the manner in which it functions, and that it is difficult,
if not impossible, to explain such delay with precision, more
particularly since files have to travel from desk to desk.
16. It is also well settled that if Courts take a very strict approach in
matters of condonation of delay on behalf of the State, and strict proof
is sought, it can lead to a miscarriage of public justice. Considering
these factors, and in view of the fact that the delay is of only 20 days,
and that it cannot be said that the State machinery has been so
lethargic in pursuing the appeal, or that the delay is so enormous, this
Signature Not Verified
HARIOM SINGH KIRMOLIYA
ITA 798/2026 Page 5 of 7

21.10.2026 16:16

Court is inclined to condone the delay.
17. The appeal has been filed on the very next day after the
approval was received, which is a very important circumstance for this
Court to exercise its discretion of condoning the delay.
18. The delay stands condoned.
CM APPL. 69615/2026 ( Delay in re-filing )
19. This is an application filed under Section 260A(2A) of the Act
read with Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963, seeking condonation
of delay of 309 days in re-filing the appeal.
20. The reason stated for the delay in re-filing is primarily the
personal difficulty faced by the counsel for the revenue, including
medical exigencies, together with the time taken to remove the defects
pointed out by the Registry and to re-obtain signed papers from the
Department. Learned counsel for the respondent has not opposed the
said application.
21. In view of the reasons stated, and as the application is not
opposed, the delay of 309 days in re-filing the appeal stands
condoned.
ITA 798/2026
22. Admit.
23. The following substantial questions of law are framed for
consideration:
(i) Whether the ITAT in the facts and
circumstances of the case was right in
accepting the Assessee’s computation of the
actuarial surplus, which includes deductions
on the ground of future appropriations and
Signature Not Verified
HARIOM SINGH KIRMOLIYA
ITA 798/2026 Page 6 of 7

21.10.2026 16:16

allocation of bonus to policy holders?

(ii) Was the ITAT right in invoking the rule
of consistency in accepting the Assessee’s
case?





SUBRAMONIUM PRASAD, J

RENU BHATNAGAR, J
OCTOBER 12, 2026/ ng/my

Signature Not Verified
HARIOM SINGH KIRMOLIYA
ITA 798/2026 Page 7 of 7

21.10.2026 16:16