Inordinate appellate delay cannot be condoned without a bona fide, cogent explanation.

GRM Constructions sought condonation of a 488-day delay in filing eight tax case appeals challenging the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal’s order dated 18 October 2024 for assessment years 2013–14 to 2020–21.

The appeals were required to be filed within 120 days, by 15 February 2025, but were filed on 18 June 2026.

The applicant attributed the delay to procedural, administrative and circumstantial factors beyond its control.

The Court found that the supporting affidavits did not provide valid or cogent reasons for the delay.

Whether the applicant showed sufficient cause under Section 5 of the Limitation Act to condone the 488-day delay in filing the tax case appeals.

Whether the delay should be condoned when the explanation offered was not supported by valid and cogent reasons.

Section 5 of the Limitation Act permits condonation of delay where sufficient cause is established.

The Court relied on Karnataka Power Corporation Ltd. v. K. Thangappan, which recognises that delay and laches may justify refusal of discretionary relief, with discretion to be exercised judicially and reasonably.

It also relied on Shivamma v. Karnataka Housing Board and Thirunagalingam v. Lingeswaran, which require courts to assess the bona fides and sufficiency of the explanation before considering the merits; delay is not to be condoned as a matter of course or merely in the name of substantial justice.

The applicant’s general assertion that procedural, administrative and circumstantial factors caused the delay did not, in the Court’s view, establish sufficient cause.

Applying the cited principles, the Court assessed the explanation rather than beginning with the merits of the proposed appeals and concluded that the affidavits disclosed no valid or cogent reasons for the 488-day delay.

It dismissed the applications to condone the delay and, consequently, rejected the eight tax case appeals at the SR stage.