Court denies adjournment request, dismisses belated appeal due to significant delay and lack of substantial reasons. Condonation application incomplete.

The Court refused a request for adjournment in the case, dismissing the belated appeal due to significant delay and lack of substantial reasons provided for the delay. The condonation of delay application was found to be vague and incomplete, lacking sufficient cause for condonation of delay. Despite various reasons cited for the delay, including pending miscellaneous applications, the Court did not find valid cause to entertain the grossly belated appeal under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961.

---

---

Issues:
1. Request for adjournment in the case.
2. Appeal under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961.
3. Condonation of delay in filing the appeal.
4. Vagueness and incompleteness of the condonation of delay application.
5. Entertaining a belated appeal.
6. Pending miscellaneous application before the ITAT.

Analysis:

1. The Court refused a request for adjournment in the case, noting that the appeal had been dismissed in default previously, and despite a belated restoration application being allowed, the appellant failed to appear when the matter was listed again, leading to the request for further adjournment being declined.

2. The assessee sought to maintain an appeal under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act against the order passed by the ITAT for the Assessment Year 2004-05.

3. The appeal, filed after a delay of 1110 days, was reportedly time-barred by nearly three and a half years. The application seeking condonation of delay cited various reasons for the delay, including a decision to file a Miscellaneous Application first, leading to a belief that further action would be advised, resulting in the delay in filing the appeal.

4. The Court found the condonation of delay application to be vague and incomplete on material particulars, lacking sufficient cause for condonation of delay.

5. Despite the reasons provided in the application for the delay in filing the appeal, the Court did not find any valid cause to entertain the grossly belated appeal, especially considering the multiple delays and lack of clarity in the submissions made.

6. The appellant's counsel mentioned a pending miscellaneous application before the ITAT, but the Court did not comment on this matter, leaving it open for the concerned parties to pursue appropriately and in accordance with the law.

In conclusion, the Court rejected the application seeking condonation of delay and dismissed the appeal due to the significant delay and lack of substantial reasons provided to justify the belated filing.

---