Appeal Dismissed for Lack of Legal Question, Delayed Filing

The appeal was dismissed by the High Court as it did not raise any substantial question of law. The court upheld the decision of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal to dismiss the restoration application due to an unexplained delay of 1924 days. The appellant's reasons for the delay were found insufficient, lacking an affidavit. The court emphasized that the appellant's conduct did not warrant leniency in condoning the delay, ultimately leading to the dismissal of the appeal.

---

---

Issues Involved:
1. Condonation of delay in filing the appeal.
2. Restoration of the appeal dismissed for want of COD (Committee on Disputes) approval.
3. Substantial question of law for entertaining the appeal.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Condonation of Delay:
The appellant filed an appeal along with an IA for condonation of delay, citing the COVID-19 pandemic as the reason for the delay. The High Court noted that the Apex Court had held that the period of limitation would not apply during the lockdown, thus the appeal was filed within time, and the IA was closed.

2. Restoration of Appeal Dismissed for Want of COD Approval:
The appellant, a Public Sector Undertaking, challenged the order of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) which dismissed their appeal due to a delay of 1924 days in filing the restoration application. The ITAT initially dismissed the appeal on 03.06.2010 for lack of COD approval but left the option open for revival upon obtaining clearance. The Apex Court later ruled in Electronics Corporation of India Limited that COD approval was no longer necessary. The Revenue's appeal was restored in 2011, but the appellant did not take similar steps until 2019, citing transfer/retirement of officers and change in tax consultants as reasons for the delay. The ITAT found these reasons unsatisfactory, lacking an affidavit, and dismissed the restoration application.

3. Substantial Question of Law:
The High Court examined whether the appellant's case involved any substantial question of law. The appellant argued that the ITAT should have restored their appeal in light of the Apex Court's ruling in Electronics Corporation of India Limited. The respondent countered that the appellant had ample opportunity to act but failed to do so for nearly 8 years, and the delay was not satisfactorily explained.

The High Court found no substantial question of law, noting that the ITAT's decision was based on factual findings regarding the inordinate delay. The appellant was aware of the Apex Court's ruling but did not act promptly. The reasons provided for the delay were deemed insufficient and not supported by an affidavit. The High Court upheld the ITAT's decision, emphasizing that the appellant's conduct did not warrant a liberal approach to condoning the delay.

Conclusion:
The appeal was dismissed as it did not involve any substantial question of law. The High Court supported the ITAT's decision to dismiss the restoration application due to the unexplained and inordinate delay of 1924 days.

---