High Court overturns Tribunal decision due to delay under Income-tax Act. Appellant's valid reasons for delay recognized.

The High Court set aside the Tribunal's decision to dismiss the appeal due to a 12-day delay under section 260A of the Income-tax Act, 1961. The Court found that the appellant had valid reasons for the delay, caused by a strike at the State Bank of India. The Tribunal's failure to consider these reasons and its hyper-technical approach were deemed unjust. Consequently, the appeal was allowed, and the matter was remitted back to the Tribunal for a fresh hearing on the merits, with no costs awarded.

---

---

Issues:
Appeal under section 260A of the Income-tax Act, 1961 challenging the Tribunal's order dismissing the appeal due to a 12-day delay.

Analysis:
The appeal was filed under section 260A of the Income-tax Act, 1961, contesting the Tribunal's decision to dismiss the appeal based on a 12-day delay. The appellant's counsel argued that due to unavoidable circumstances, he could not appear before the Tribunal, and the Tribunal should have either adjourned the matter or provided an opportunity to explain the delay. The counsel contended that the Tribunal took a hyper-technical view regarding the sufficient cause for the delay, despite the submission of an application explaining the delay. On the other hand, the Revenue's senior counsel left the decision to the court's discretion.

The primary question of law framed in this appeal was whether the Tribunal was justified in not condoning the 12-day delay and whether such a decision amounted to a perverse approach. Upon careful perusal of the Tribunal's order, it was evident that the delay was caused by a strike at the State Bank of India, preventing the appellant from making the necessary payment. Despite the strike being a valid reason for the delay, the Tribunal did not accept it due to the lack of documentary evidence. Notably, the Tribunal made its decision in the absence of both parties.

The High Court, after thorough consideration, concluded that the Tribunal had taken a hyper-technical approach in this matter. The Court found that the appellant had provided sufficient reasons for the delay, and rejecting the appeal solely based on the delay, when a valid cause was shown, amounted to a perverse approach. Consequently, the High Court set aside the Tribunal's order and remitted the matter back to the Tribunal for a fresh hearing on the merits. The appeal was allowed, and no costs were awarded in the case.

---