Appeal of Government Departments- in changed circumstances, strict filing limitations should be the rule. Condonation of Delay {COD in short} petitions and condonation deserve to banned.

Synopsis:

In our country Governments and its departments are the biggest litigants. Litigation is initiated by government officers generally at the earliest possible stage and then nurtured and lengthened the litigation at all stages till the Supreme Court.

In this article learned author has attempted to point out that in Government Departments appeals delay in filing with Condonation of delay petitions are regular as a routine whereas it should be rare.

Rather he suggest that COD should be banned in case of Governments appeal because of lot of resources are available to departments.

Learned author also mention some suggestions to reduce litigation due to COD.

Well organized and well equipped government litigation departments:

The government department like tax departments have more than sufficient infrastructure and highly skilled work force to deal with such matters to ensure timely filing.

The departments have regular functionary for such matter because filing of appeals is a regular aspect due to reason that many times un-necessary and even not maintainable and not deserving appeal are also filed, just to file an appeal to show work done and also to avoid criticism.

Government Departments particularly Tax Department and its officers are well aware of their own procedures and time has to be managed by them to file appeal within time.

Department has available fast communication and data assimilation and processing tools in nature of Information Technology Enabled Services (ITES) by having websites / portals of Department Tribunals also have their portal on which orders are easily accessible.

Officers have computers with networking, internet facility, email addresses, network connectivity and digital signatures, land line and mobile phones etc. at their service for expeditious working.

Distances, if any are now not a major factor. Majority of concerned officers have generally local offices situated in the same building or complex of buildings a building within short distance. Even otherwise now with fast communication means distances have no meaning.

Departments also have facilities of services of Advocates including Solicitor General and Additional Solicitor Generals and Standing Counsels besides own judicial department.

Computers have reduced time requirement:

Typing on computers, dictation on computer and even in mobile phones coupled with no need to retype but just to edit etc. have reduced time requirement to less than 1/4th. Dependency of steno and typist have also reduced.

Standard forms, standard paragraph, sentences, phrases used also reduces time required.

System of copy and paste, with due care has also reduced time requirements.

Artificial intelligence is also being used to expedite and add speed in working.

Files and documents can be sent to other concerned person almost instantly.

Therefore, many of excuses still mentioned in COD petitions are lame excuses in changed circumstances and working conditions.

Certified copy of order:

Time taken for obtaining certified copy of order can also be considered a lame excuse. This is because copy of order can be downloaded from website of tribunal / Court and a government officer who is using it can use it for filing of appeal. Even tax payers are using such copies after certifying as copy obtained from website and avoiding delays.

As a practical measure one can keep a xerox copy and scanned PDF copy of order received from original authority and file appeal enclosing the copy of order received from the authority, as it is duly signed by concerned authority.

It is also time to change provisions about obtaining certified copy of orders by concerned officer of the original authority or court. It can be provided that:

Up loading PDF signed copy on portals

Best way can be to upload duly signed (on all pages) PDF copy on website of concerned Tribunal or Court copy of order. Till this is implemented standard operational procedure can be prescribed on following lines:

Parties to the lis can obtain copy of order to be appealed from portal of Tribunal or Court and certify as true copy obtained from website.

Any party can raise objection, if he find that a copy filed by another party is not true copy or it has some differences.

Officer of court in which appeal is filed can be authorised to verify it and raise objection if some differences are found.

Delegation of disposal of COD petitions:

With proper guidelines hearing of COD petitions can be delegated to save valuable time of honourable judges.

Recent and few years old matters before the Supreme Court

A compilation of some judgments / orders of the Supreme Court are appended below for 2026 and few years old orders in which COD petitions were preferred by Revenue Departments with long delay and the honourable Supreme Court was not satisfied about reasons given for delay. Period of delay is generally in years more than one year (365 days) only in some of cases it is less than 365 days. COD disposed off during 2024 and 2025 are included to show that there is no change and same pattern is continuing till recently disposed off COD petitions.

Phrases used by Supreme Court:

Some of phrases used by honourable Supreme Court about reasons for delay are as follows:

neither satisfactory nor sufficient in law so as to condone ...

any plausible and bona fide explanation is not given

there is absolutely no explanation for delay

We do not find satisfactory explanation

These shows lack of sincerity, merit, and lack of bona fide reasons for delay.

Some of orders / judgments or relevant portion are reproduced below with highlights, numbering etc. added by learned author and also some observations, when considered necessary by learned author:

Principal Commissioner of Income Tax 7 Versus Tata Teleservices Ltd. - 2026 (9) TMI 789 - SC Order

No.- Special Leave Petition (Civil) Diary No(s). 45958/2026

Dated:- September 8, 2026

Citations of order / judgment appealed against:

1. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax-7 Versus Tata Teleservices Ltd. - 2025 (10) TMI 1469 - DELHI HIGH COURT. { per author this judgment was to follow a settled issue so repetitive appeal could be avoided by another process prescribed)

HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE B.V. NAGARATHNA AND HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R. MAHADEVAN

For the Petitioner(s): 1. Mr. N Venkataraman, A.S.G., 2. Mr. Sudarshan Lamba, AOR, 3. Mr. V Chandrashekhara Bharathi, Adv.,4. Mr. Nikhil Aradhe, Adv 5. Mr. Akshat Aggarwal, Adv., 6. Mrs. Kiran Bhardwaj, Adv. { per author Six counsels appeared but could not get a relief- means there was no merit and it was an un-necessary litigation}

For the Respondent(s): Mr. Sumit Lal Chandan, Adv.

ORDER

1. We have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Sumit Lal Chandan, learned counsel for the respondent, who is present before the Court.

2. There is a gross delay of 201 days in filing the Special Leave Petition.

3. The reasons assigned for condonation of delay are neither satisfactory nor sufficient in law so as to condone the same.

4. Hence, the application seeking condonation of delay is dismissed.

5. Consequently, the Special Leave Petition is dismissed on the ground of delay leaving open the questions of law, if any.

6. Pending application(s), if any, shall stand disposed of.

The Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax Central Versus Heaven Suppliers Pvt. Ltd. - 2026 (9) TMI 391 - SC Order

Citations:

1. Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax (Central) 2 Versus Heaven Suppliers Pvt. Ltd. - 2026 (8) TMI 1198 - SC Order
2. Pr. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Central) -2. Versus Heaven Suppliers Pvt. Ltd. - 2023 (10) TMI 705 - DELHI HIGH COURT

HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE B.V. NAGARATHNA AND HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R. MAHADEVAN

For the Petitioner(s): 1. Mr. S Dwarakanath, A.S.G., 2. Mr. Sudarshan Lamba, AOR, 3. Mr. Rajat Vaishnaw, Adv.,4. Ms. Disha Thakkar, Adv., 5. Mr. Aman Jha, Adv., 6. Mr. Kamal Kishore, Adv., 7. Mr. Abhyudey Kabra, Adv., 8. Mr. Mudit Bansal, Adv., 9. Mr. S. Vijay Adithya, Adv. { per author nine counsels appeared but could not get a relief- in spite of fact that no one appeared for respondent. This clearly can be said that there was no merit and it was an un-necessary litigation. Furthermore, in similar matter of same respondent in earlier occasion six counsels appeared and COD of 902 days was rejected. Question is why nine counsels were engaged in such case at cost of public funds}

For the Respondent(s): None.

ORDER

1. Delay in refiling is condoned.

2. There is a gross delay of 900 days in filing the Special Leave Petition.

3. The reasons assigned seeking condonation of delay are neither satisfactory nor sufficient in law to condone the same.

4. Hence, the application seeking con donation of delay is dismissed.

5. Consequently, the Special Leave Petition is also dismissed.

6. In passing this order, we also follow the order of this Court dated 17.08.2026 in SLP (C) Diary No. 38635 of 2026 (Principal Commissioner of Income Tax (Central) 2 vs. Heaven Suppliers Pvt. Ltd.).

7. Pending application(s), if any, shall stand disposed of.

Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax (Central) 2 Versus Heaven Suppliers Pvt. Ltd. - 2026 (8) TMI 1198 - SC Order

No.- Special Leave Petition (Civil) Diary No(s). 38635/2026

Dated:- August 17, 2026

Citations:

1. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, Central-3 Versus Abhisar Buildwell P. Ltd., RITU AGARWAL And Kesarwani Zarda Bhandar, Sahson, Allahabad Versus Commissioner of Income Tax (Central) Kanpur - 2023 (4) TMI 1056 - Supreme Court
2. Pr. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Central) -2. Versus Heaven Suppliers Pvt. Ltd. - 2023 (10) TMI 705 - DELHI HIGH COURT

HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE B.V. NAGARATHNA AND HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R. MAHADEVAN

For the Petitioner(s) : 1. Mr. N Venkataraman, A.S.G., 2. Mr. Sudarshan Lamba, AOR, 3. Mr. V Chandrashekhara Bharathi, Adv., 4. Mr. Kartikeya Asthana, Adv.,5. Mr. Yogya Rajpurohit, Adv., 6. Mr. Brijesh Yadav, Adv. {per author Six counsels appeared but could not get a relief- in spite of respondent remaining un represented. This clearly means there was no merit and it was an un-necessary litigation}

For the Respondent(s) : None.

ORDER

1. There is a gross delay of 902 days in filing the special leave petition. The reasons assigned for seeking condonation of delay are neither satisfactory nor sufficient in law to condone the same. Hence, the application seeking condonation of delay is dismissed.

2. Further, we find that the issues which are raised in the special leave petition are covered by the judgment of this Court in Civil Appeal No. 6580 of 2021 (Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, Central-3 v/s. Abhisar Buildwell P. Ltd.) rendered on 24.04.2023. In the circumstances, the special leave petition is also dismissed in terms of the said judgment on merits.

3. We fail to understand as to how the petitioner/Department has filed this special leave petition with 902 days delay when even according to the Department the matter is covered by an earlier judgment of this Court in Civil Appeal No. 6580 of 2021 (Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, Central-3 v/s. Abhisar Buildwell P. Ltd.) rendered on 24.04.2023. This is an instance of burdening this Court with an unnecessary special leave petition and adding to the pendency.

4. Pending application(s) shall stand disposed of.

The Principal Commissioner of Income Tax 4 Versus M/s. Cholamandalam Ms General Insurance Company Ltd. - 2026 (8) TMI 1277 - Supreme Court

No.- Special Leave Petition (Civil) Diary No(s). 36356/2026

Dated:- August 17, 2026

Citations:

1. The Principal Commissioner of Income Tax – 4, Chennai. Versus M/s. Cholamandalam MS General Insurance Company Ltd. - 2025 (6) TMI 1488 - MADRAS HIGH COURT

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PAMIDIGHANTAM SRI NARASIMHA AND HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ALOK ARADHE

For the Petitioner(s): 1.Mr. S Dwarakanath, A.S.G., 2. Mr. Sudarshan Lamba, AOR,

3. Mr. Kartikay Aggarwal, Adv., 4. Mr. Shailendra Tiwary, Adv., 5. Mr. S Vijay Adithya, Adv., 6. Mr. Yogya Rajpurohit, Adv. { per author Six counsels appeared but could not get a relief- means there was no merit and it was an un-necessary litigation. Furthermore we find that no counsel was heard means by looking at the COD petition it was dismissed}

For the Respondent(s): Mr. Arvind Datar,, Sr. Adv., Mr. Vivek Jain, AOR, Mr. Vinayak Mittal, Adv., Mr. Sandeep Bagmar R, Adv., Mr. Dwarakesh Prabhakaran, Adv., Ms. Gunjan Prabhakaran, Adv., Ms. Suchitra Kumbhat, Adv., Mr. Sadiq Noor, Adv., Mr. Rohit H Nair, Adv., Ms. Benila Bm, Adv., Mr. Angad Pathak, Adv., Ms. Ishika Gandhi, Adv.

ORDER

1. There is a delay of 420 days in filing this Special Leave Petition and we do not find any plausible and bona fide explanation to condone this inordinate delay.

2. The Special Leave Petition is, accordingly, dismissed on the ground of delay.

3. Pending interlocutory application(s), if any, is/are disposed of.

Prl. Commissioner of Income Tax (International Taxation) & Anr. Versus M/s. IBM India Pvt. Ltd. - 2026 (8) TMI 60 - SC Order

No.- Special Leave Petition (Civil) Diary No(s). 20882/2026

Dated:- July 29, 2026

Citations:

1. 2025 (3) TMI 1749 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT
   Prl. Commissioner Of Income Tax, The Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, International Taxation, Kormangala Versus M/s. IBM India Pvt. Ltd.

HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE B.V. NAGARATHNA AND HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R. MAHADEVAN

For the Petitioner(s): Mr. S Dwarakanath, A.S.G., Mr. Sudarshan Lamba, AOR, Mr. Rajat Vaishnaw, Adv., Mr. Nikhil Aradhe, Adv., Mr. Udai Khanna, Adv., Mr. Sachin Sharma, Adv. { per author Six counsels appeared but could not get a relief- means there was no merit and it was an un-necessary litigation}

For the Respondent(s) : None.

ORDER

1. There is a gross delay of 307 days in filing the Special Leave Petition. The reasons assigned for seeking condonation of delay are neither satisfactory nor sufficient in law so as to condone the same. Hence, the application seeking condonation of delay is dismissed.

2. Consequently, the Special Leave Petition is also dismissed on the ground of delay.

3.. Pending application(s) shall stand disposed of.

Commissioner Of Customs Versus M/s. Elvance Overseas LLP. - 2026 (7) TMI 1629 - SC Order

No.- CIVIL APPEAL DIARY NO(S). 33824/2026

Dated:- July 20, 2026

Citations:

1. 2024 (6) TMI 1186 - CESTAT CHANDIGARH
   Commissioner of Customs ICD Patparganj, Delhi Versus M/s Elvance Overseas LLP

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANOJ MISRA AND HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJAY BISHNOI

For the Petitioner(s): Mr. N Venkataraman, A.S.G., Mr. Gurmeet Singh Makker, AOR, Mr. V C Bharathi, Adv., Mrs. Nasadiya Singh, Adv., Mrs. Sushma, Adv. { per author five x counsels appeared for revenue, no one for respondent but revenue could not get a relief- means there was no merit and it was an un-necessary litigation}

For the Respondent(s): None.

ORDER

1. These appeals are reported to be beyond time by 611 days. We do not find satisfactory explanation to condone the delay.

2. Consequently, the appeals are dismissed as barred by limitation.

3. Pending application(s), if any, shall stand disposed of.

The Commissioner Of Income Tax Versus Nokia Corporation. - 2026 (8) TMI 59 - SC Order

No.- Special Leave Petition (Civil) Diary No(S). 36012/2026

Dated:- July 17, 2026

Citations:

1. The Commissioner of Income Tax 2 Versus Nokia Corporation. - 2026 (4) TMI 1197 - SC Order
2. The Commissioner Of Income Tax - International Taxation -2 Versus Nokia Network Oy, Nokia Corporation (Formerly Known As Nokia Network Oy). - 2025 (2) TMI 990 - DELHI HIGH COURT

HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE B.V. NAGARATHNA AND HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R. MAHADEVAN

For the Petitioner(s): 1. Mr. N Venkataraman, A.S.G., 2. Mr. Sudarshan Lamba, AOR, 3. Mr. Gaurav Arya, Adv., 4. Mr. Kartikay Asthana, Adv., 5. Mr. Vikash Sharma, Adv., 6. Mr. Rajendra Sahu, Adv., 7. Mr. V.C. Bharathi, Adv., { per author Seven counsels appeared but could not get a relief- means there was no merit and it was an un-necessary litigation.}

For the Respondent(s): Mr. Ankul Goyal, Adv., Ms. Tanvi Aggarwal, Adv., Mr. Anmol Anand, AOR.

ORDER

1. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that in similar matters as against the very same respondent - assessee involving the very same issues, this Court had dismissed the Special Leave Petition on the ground of delay and that in the instant case there is a delay of 383 days in filing the Special Leave Petition.

{Per author_ the submission made by learned counsel could have been made by learned AOR / (rather by an application by petitioner) and it was not necessary to engage so many counsels}

2. Hence, appropriate orders may be made in this case also.

3. We find that in this case also the reasons assigned for seeking condonation of delay are neither satisfactory nor sufficient in law so as to condone the delay. Hence, the application seeking condonation of delay is dismissed.

4. Consequently, the Special Leave Petition is dismissed.

5. We note that the petitioner was aware of the fact that in respect of the matter as against the very same respondents involving the very same issues, this Court had dismissed the Special Leave Petition on the ground of gross delay of 286 days in filing the Special Leave Petition (Civil) Diary No. 14909 of 2026. We fail to understand as to how this Special Leave Petition could have been filed subsequently with 383 days delay.

6. We further observe that the department ought to have been conscious of the fact that Special Leave Petition (Civil) Diary No. 14909 of 2026 had been dismissed by this Court on the ground of delay. Then, the filing of this Special Leave Petition with a greater delay of 383 days on the very same issue only for the sake of seeking a dismissal on the ground of delay could have been avoided by the Department.

7. Pending application(s), if any, shall stand disposed of.

THE PR. COMM. OF INCOME TAX & ANR. Versus M/s COFFEE DAY ENTERPRISES LTD. - 2024 (8) TMI 133 - SC Order

SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (CIVIL) DIARY NO(S). 19221/2024

Dated: - 22-7-2024

Judgment / Order

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ABHAY S. OKA And HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH

For the Petitioner : 1. Mrs. Nisha Bagchi, Sr. Adv. 2. Mr. Raj Bahadur Yadav, 3. AOR Mr. Udai Khanna, Adv. 4. Mr. Navanjay Mahapatra, Adv. 5. Mr. Santosh Kumar, Adv

ORDER

UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following.

After having perused the application for condonation of delay, we find that there is absolutely no explanation for a delay of 340 days in preferring the Special Leave Petition. Hence, the Application seeking condonation of delay in preferring the Special Leave Petition is rejected. Consequently, the Special Leave Petition stands dismissed on the ground of delay. However, question of law, if any, is kept open.

Pending application stands disposed of accordingly.

Citations: in THE PR. COMM. OF INCOME TAX & ANR. Versus M/s COFFEE DAY ENTERPRISES LTD. - 2024 (8) TMI 133 - SC Order

1. THE PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIT (A), THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE-1 (3), BENGALURU Versus M/s. COFFEEDAY ENTERPRISES LTD - 2023 (2) TMI 1324 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT

PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX – 2 Versus M/s BANK OF BARODA - 2024 (8) TMI 58 - SC Order

SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (CIVIL) DIARY NO(S). 24889/2024

Dated: - 15-7-2024

Delay filling SLP - Gross delay of 265 days in preferring this Special Leave Petition - as decided by HC Tribunal was right in cancelling the order made u/s 263 directing the AO to exclude interest u/s 244A granted to it on excess refund claimed through a revised return - HELD THAT:- As perused the application seeking condonation of delay. We are totally dis-satisfied with the manner in which the said application has been drafted inasmuch as it gives an impression that a cyclostlyed and sterotyped form of application has been made use of to insert certain dates so as to adjust to the date of filing of the special leave petition(s).

The explanation offered for the said delay is also not satisfactory nor is it sufficient in law to condone the same.

Application seeking condonation is dismissed. Consequently, the Special Leave Petition is also dismissed on the ground of delay.

Judgment / Order

HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE B.V. NAGARATHNA And HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DIPANKAR DATTA

For the Petitioner : Mr. N Venkatraman, A.S.G. Mr. Raj Bahadur Yadav, AOR Mr. P S Sudheer, Adv. Mrs. Sunita Sharma, Adv. Ms. Monica Benjamin, Adv. Mr. Mukul Singh, Adv. Mr. Siddharth Sinha, Adv. Mr. Padmesh Mishra, Adv. Mr. H R Rao, Adv.

ORDER

UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following.

There is a gross delay of 265 days in preferring the Special Leave Petition. We have also perused the application seeking condonation of delay. We are totally dis-satisfied with the manner in which the said application has been drafted inasmuch as it gives an impression that a cyclostlyed and sterotyped form of application has been made use of to insert certain dates so as to adjust to the date of filing of the special leave petition(s).

The explanation offered for the said delay is also not satisfactory nor is it sufficient in law to condone the same.

Recently, on 11th July, 2014, we had passed the following order in Diary No(s). 26799/2024, which is reiterated -

"There is gross delay of 484 days in filing the Special Leave Petition. The explanation offered for seeking condonation of delay is not satisfactory and therefore, not sufficient in law to be condoned.

Consequently, the application seeking condonation of delay is dismissed.

It has become necessary for us to observe that the petitioner-Department has been consistently filing Special Leave Petitions before this Court even when there is gross delay of hundreds of days. It appears that there is no immediate attention bestowed on the cases so as to seek urgent relief and possibly, despite enormous delay, the Special Leave Petitions have been filed only to seek an imprimatur of this Court in the cases. We do not appreciate this practice of the Department in doing so.

It is necessary that the Department takes into consideration only those cases which are fit enough and have merit to be filed before this Court expeditiously and does not make it a habit to assail almost every order or judgment which is otherwise correct in law and facts and file Special Leave Petitions belatedly.

This Special Leave Petition is dismissed on the ground of delay.

Pending application(s), if any, shall stand disposed of."

In the circumstances, the application seeking condonation is dismissed. Consequently, the Special Leave Petition is also dismissed on the ground of delay.

Pending application(s) shall stand disposed of.

Citations: in PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX – 2 Versus M/s BANK OF BARODA - 2024 (8) TMI 58 - SC Order

1. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-1, KOLKATA Versus M/s SPML INFRA LIMITED - 2024 (7) TMI 1294 - SC Order
2. Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax - 2 Versus Bank of Baroda - 2023 (6) TMI 1407 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT

THE INCOME TAX OFFICER Versus M/s. CORNERSTONE PROPERTY INVESTMENTS PVT. LTD. -2024 (7) TMI 976 - SC Order

SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (CIVIL) DIARY NO(S). 26251/2024

Dated: - 15-7-2024

Judgment / Order

HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE B. V. NAGARATHNA And HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DIPANKAR DATTA

For the Petitioner : 1. Mr. N Venkatraman, A.S.G. 2. Mr. Raj Bahadur Yadav, AOR

3. Mr. Shashank Bajpai, Adv. 4. Mr. P S Sudheer, Adv. 5. Mr. Mukul Singh, Adv. 6. Ms. Monica Benjamin, Adv. 7. Mr. Siddharth Sinha, Adv. 8. Mr. H R Rao, Adv. Mr. 9. Padmesh Mishra, Adv

UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following.

There is a gross delay of 325 days in preferring the Special Leave Petition. We have perused the application seeking condonation of delay. It is noted that on 21.03.2024 the special leave petition was sent to CAS after vetting, there afterwards nothing is stated and special leave petition has been filed on 07.06.2024. However, what is stated in the application seeking condonation of delay is otherwise. The explanation offered for the said delay is also not satisfactory and neither is it sufficient in law to condone the same.

In the circumstances, the application seeking condonation is dismissed. Consequently, the Special Leave Petition is also dismissed on the ground of delay.

Pending application(s) shall stand disposed of.

The article is placed in category of other topics because the concept and theme is applicable in all sorts of litigation by government departments.