Vague e-filing difficulties and registry defects are insufficient to condone inordinate delay.

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

The petitioner attributed the delay to the time required to familiarise itself with the electronic filing system and satisfy its technical requirements, which, it said, prevented it from curing Registry defects in time.

The Court considered the condonation petitions together.

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

2. Whether the appeals should be rejected if the explanation for delay did not establish sufficient cause.

In Karnataka Power Corporation Ltd. v. K. Thangappan, (2006) 4 SCC 322, the Supreme Court held that delay is relevant to the exercise of judicial discretion and that relief may be refused where negligence or omission, considered with the lapse of time and other circumstances, causes prejudice; discretion must be exercised judicially and reasonably.

In Shivamma v. Karnataka Housing Board, 2025 INSC 1104, and Thirunagalingam v. Lingeswaran, 2025 INSC 672, the Supreme Court emphasised that the court must first assess the bona fides and sufficiency of the explanation for delay, and that delay should not be condoned as a matter of course or generosity; the merits of the main matter become relevant only where the explanation and opposition are evenly balanced.

The Court assessed the petitioner’s stated explanation against the requirement to establish bona fide and sufficient cause.

It found that the assertions about learning the electronic filing mechanism and curing Registry defects did not provide valid or cogent reasons for the inordinate delay.

Applying the Supreme Court’s guidance, the Court declined to treat the explanation as sufficient and did not proceed on the merits of the appeals.

It dismissed the condonation petitions and consequently rejected the tax case appeal SRs, with no order as to costs.