Unfamiliarity with e-filing procedures is insufficient cause to condone inordinate delay.

The petitioner sought condonation of a 961-day delay in representing its tax case appeal, arising from an order of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal dated 7 July 2023.

Its affidavit attributed the delay to the time taken to familiarise itself with electronic filing, satisfy technical requirements and cure Registry defects.

The Court heard the condonation petitions together with related matters.

Whether the petitioner showed sufficient cause to condone the 961-day delay in representing the tax case appeal

Whether the delay could be condoned in the absence of a bona fide and cogent explanation, having regard to the principles stated in the Supreme Court authorities cited by the Court

The Court applied the principle that condonation of delay is discretionary and requires a judicial assessment of the explanation, including whether the delay caused prejudice; even where a right is involved, relief is not automatic (Karnataka Power Corporation Ltd. v. K. Thangappan, (2006) 4 SCC 322).

It further relied on Shivamma v. Karnataka Housing Board, 2025 INSC 1104, for the rules that the length of delay is relevant, the court must first assess the bona fides of the explanation rather than begin with the merits, and substantial justice does not automatically override limitation.

Under Thirunagalingam v. Lingeswaran, 2025 INSC 672, delay should not be condoned as an act of generosity; the applicant must establish reasonable grounds, and the merits may be considered only where the explanation and opposition are otherwise evenly balanced.

The Court considered the explanation that familiarising with electronic filing and meeting technical requirements had delayed the curing of Registry defects.

It found that this account did not provide valid or cogent reasons sufficient to explain the inordinate delay.

Applying the cited authorities, the Court declined to treat substantial justice or the merits of the appeals as a substitute for a bona fide explanation of the delay.

Consequently, the related TCA SRs were rejected; there was no order as to costs.