Inordinate Delay Cannot Be Condoned Without Sufficient Cause T2 – 11 words

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 sought condonation of a stated delay of 2,376 days in filing the appeal before the Karnataka High Court.

The Revenue explained that it had first filed an appeal before the High Court of Bombay at Goa on 16 February 2015; that appeal was returned on 27 October 2020 for presentation before the jurisdictional High Court.

The present appeal was filed on 31 July 2021, following administrative forwarding of the case papers.

The respondent opposed condonation, arguing that the delay was inordinate and insufficiently explained.

The Revenue also relied on the COVID-19 pandemic in oral submissions, although it had not stated that ground in its supporting affidavit.

Whether the Revenue established “sufficient cause” under Section 5 of the Limitation Act for condoning the stated delay of 2,376 days in filing the appeal.

Whether the COVID-19 pandemic could support condonation when it was not pleaded in the affidavit accompanying the application.

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

The Court relied on Chennai Metropolitan Water Supply and Sewerage Board v. T.T. Murali Babu, (2014) 4 SCC 108, for the principles that delay and laches require scrutiny, inordinate delay may defeat a claim, and courts should consider whether the explanation is acceptable.

It also relied on Majji Sannemma @ Sanyasirao v. Reddy Sridevi, Civil Appeal No. 7696/2021, and Basawaraj v. Special Land Acquisition Officer, (2013) 14 SCC 81, for the rule that “sufficient cause” cannot be liberally construed where negligence, inaction, or lack of bona fides is attributable to the party.

The Court further referred to Lingeswaran Etc. v. Thirunagalingam, SLP (C) Nos. 2054–2055/2022; Shivamma (Dead) by LRs v. Karnataka Housing Board, Civil Appeal No. 11794 of 2025; and State of Odisha v. Managing Committee of Namatara Girls High School, 2026 SCC OnLine SC 191, in support of rejecting unexplained delay and holding that condonation is not a matter of right.

The Court found that the affidavit explained the initial filing before the Bombay High Court at Goa and the subsequent administrative movement of the papers, but did not establish sufficient cause for the full delay in bringing the appeal before the Karnataka High Court.

It rejected the COVID-19 explanation because that ground was absent from the affidavit and was raised only in counsel’s submissions.

Applying the cited principles on inordinate delay and the need for an adequate explanation, the Court held that the Revenue had not justified condonation of the stated 2,376-day delay.

It rejected Interlocutory Application No. 1 of 2022 and consequently dismissed the appeal without examining its merits.