Court grants appellant's delayed application, directs prompt appeal registration, analyzes delay circumstances.

The Court allowed the appellant's section 5 application despite acknowledging the lack of vigilance due to significant delay in receiving a crucial order. The respondent's failure to prove an earlier receipt date supported the appellant's case for condonation of delay. The Court imposed costs on the appellant and directed the department to register the appeal promptly. The judgment provided a detailed analysis of the circumstances surrounding the delay and reasons for allowing the case to proceed.

---

---

Issues:
Delay in filing section 5 application

Analysis:
The appellant filed a section 5 application with an explanation for the inordinate delay in filing it. The delay was attributed to various dates and events, including the dismissal of the appellant's appeal by the Tribunal in 2001, rejection of a miscellaneous application in 2002, setting aside of an order in 2004, and subsequent decisions by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) and the Tribunal in 2011 and 2016. The appellant's legal heir received a copy of the order dated December 31, 2002, in 2011, almost nine years after it was issued. The respondent failed to prove an earlier receipt date. Despite the lack of vigilance by the appellant, the Court allowed the case to proceed based on the advice received and the prolonged delay in receiving the order. The appellant was directed to pay consolidated costs to the Income Tax Department. The application for condonation of delay was allowed, and the department was instructed to register the appeal immediately. The appeal and connected application were disposed of in line with the order passed in ITAT No. 417 of 2016.

This judgment primarily dealt with the issue of delay in filing a section 5 application. The Court considered the sequence of events leading to the delay, including key dates and decisions by the Tribunal and tax authorities. Despite acknowledging the appellant's lack of vigilance, the Court allowed the case to proceed due to the significant delay in receiving a crucial order. The respondent's failure to establish an earlier receipt date of the order further supported the appellant's case for condonation of delay. The Court imposed costs on the appellant and directed the department to register the appeal promptly. The judgment provided a detailed analysis of the circumstances surrounding the delay and the reasons for allowing the case to advance despite the delay.

---