Vague administrative workload excuses do not constitute sufficient cause to condone re-presentation delay.

The Department filed appeals under Section 260A of the Income-tax Act, 1961, challenging an ITAT order dated 7 July 2023.

The lead appeal was returned by the Registry on 20 January 2024 for defects and was due for re-presentation by 30 January 2024, but was re-presented only on 21 March 2026, causing a delay of 781 days.

The Department sought condonation, attributing the delay to the simultaneous filing of approximately 530 other appeals, voluminous records, and the work involved in correcting and re-presenting connected appeals.

Whether the Department provided sufficient cause to condone the 781-day delay in re-presenting the tax case appeal.

Whether a liberal approach to delay could be justified because the appellant was a government department and the delay was attributed to its counsel’s workload and administrative requirements.

An application to condone delay in re-presentation is not subject to the same rigorous tests as an application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act; it may be decided on the explanation in the supporting affidavit.

Nevertheless, the applicant must offer a reasonable, plausible and bona fide explanation for the delay; generalized administrative workload or procedural excuses are insufficient.

The Court relied on State of Madhya Pradesh v. Bherulal, (2020) 10 SCC 654, and Office of the Chief Post Master General v. Living Media India Ltd., (2012) 3 SCC 563, for the principle that the Government receives no automatic exemption from limitation and must explain delay with diligence and bona fides.

It also relied on State of Maharashtra v. Borse Brothers Engineers and Contractors Pvt. Ltd., (2021) 6 SCC 460, and Shivamma v. Karnataka Housing Board, 2025 INSC 1104, concerning the insufficiency of procedural explanations and administrative lethargy.

Although the Court recognized that re-presentation applications are assessed less rigorously than Section 5 applications, the Department’s explanation did not account coherently for the period from 30 January 2024 to 21 March 2026.

Assertions about handling approximately 530 appeals, voluminous records and procedural requirements were general and did not explain the prolonged inaction.

The Department’s status as a government litigant did not warrant a different standard, particularly in light of the Supreme Court authorities rejecting routine administrative explanations.

The Court also noted that it had dismissed the assessees’ applications involving an approximately 954-day re-presentation delay in appeals arising from the same ITAT order and saw no basis to treat the Department differently.

It dismissed the applications seeking condonation and consequentially rejected the W.A. SR matters; there was no order as to costs.