Inordinate Appeal Delay Without Sufficient Cause Cannot Be Condoned.

The Revenue appealed under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961, against the ITAT’s order dated 30 September 2014 concerning Assessment Year 2008–09.

It first filed an appeal before the Bombay High Court at Goa on 16 February 2015. That court returned the appeal on 27 October 2020 for presentation before the jurisdictional High Court.

The Karnataka appeal was filed on 31 July 2021, and the Revenue sought condonation of a stated delay of 2,376 days under Section 5 of the Limitation Act.

The Revenue relied on administrative processing and, in oral submissions, the COVID-19 pandemic; the respondent opposed condonation, arguing that sufficient cause had not been established.

Whether the Revenue established sufficient cause to condone the stated delay of 2,376 days in filing the appeal.

Whether the COVID-19 pandemic could support condonation when it was not stated as a reason in the supporting affidavit.

Section 5 of the Limitation Act requires sufficient cause for condonation of delay; condonation is not automatic, and limitation must be applied as prescribed by law.

Relying on Chennai Metropolitan Water Supply and Sewerage Board v. T.T. Murali Babu, (2014) 4 SCC 108, the Court stated that delay and laches must be scrutinised and that unexplained inaction may defeat a claim.

It also relied on Majji Sannemma v. Reddy Sridevi, which referred to Basawaraj v. Special Land Acquisition Officer, (2013) 14 SCC 81, for the principle that negligence, inaction, or lack of bona fides does not constitute sufficient cause.

The Court further cited Lingeswaran v. Thirunagalingam, Shivamma v. Karnataka Housing Board, and State of Odisha v. Managing Committee of Namatara Girls High School on the need for a proper explanation and the proposition that condonation cannot be claimed as of right.

The Court found that the affidavit described the filing and administrative movement of the appeal papers but did not establish sufficient cause for the entire delay.

Although the Revenue’s counsel invoked the COVID-19 pandemic, that ground was absent from the affidavit; the Court therefore rejected it as a basis for condonation.

Applying the cited principles on delay and sufficient cause, the Court concluded that the Revenue had not adequately explained the inordinate delay.

It rejected Interlocutory Application No. 1 of 2022 and consequently dismissed the appeal as time-barred, without determining its merits.