1072-day delay in filing appeals: "sufficient cause" rejected due to negligence and inaction, so appeals were dismissed.

The dominant issue was whether "sufficient cause" was shown to condone an inordinate delay of 1072 days in filing appeals. The HC held that condonation is a discretionary relief to be exercised judiciously and that "sufficient cause" cannot be construed liberally where negligence, inaction, or lack of bona fides is evident. The appellant's prolonged failure to prosecute the delay petitions after initial notice and adjournments, followed by an unexplained revival after years, demonstrated a callous and lackadaisical approach, contrary to the principle that courts aid vigilant litigants. Consequently, the delay was not condoned and the appeals were not entertained.

---

---

Issues Involved:
The judgment involves the issue of condonation of delay in filing appeals against a common order passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal for the assessment years 1994-95 & 1995-96.

Details of the Judgment:

Issue 1: Condonation of Delay
The petitioner filed miscellaneous petitions to condone the delay of 1072 days in filing the appeals. The petitioner argued that pursuing alternate remedy under the Act constituted a reasonable cause for the delay. They also mentioned a change in counsel and a mistake in the order of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal as reasons for the delay. The respondent opposed the relief, stating that the petitioner failed to provide valid reasons for condoning the delay. The court emphasized the need for a "sufficient cause" to explain the delay, citing legal precedents. The court found the reasons provided insufficient to condone the significant delay, especially considering the lack of diligence on the petitioner's part.

Issue 2: Judicial Discretion
The court highlighted the importance of exercising judicial discretion judiciously in cases of condonation of delay. Referring to legal precedents, the court emphasized that negligence, inaction, or lack of bona fides on the part of the party seeking condonation cannot be overlooked. The court noted that the petitioner filed the appeals with delay petitions in 2012 but did not actively pursue the matter for several years. The court criticized the petitioner's lackadaisical attitude and cited a Supreme Court observation that courts assist those who are vigilant about their rights. Ultimately, the court refused to condone the 1072-day delay in filing the appeals.

Conclusion:
The court dismissed the miscellaneous petitions, stating that the reasons provided were insufficient to justify condoning the delay. The tax case appeals were rejected at the SR stage, and no costs were awarded in this matter.

---