Income Tax department's 535-day appeal delay condoned due to administrative circulation between authorities and substantial justice considerations

The Calcutta HC condoned a 535-day delay in filing an appeal by the Income Tax department. The appeal deadline expired on 20.07.2019, but the file circulated between various authorities including the Ministry of Law and Justice, junior government counsel, and standing counsel until 16.03.2021. The court found that while the decision to file appeal was taken timely on 16.05.2019 and the draft was prepared by 23.09.2019, administrative delays occurred during the approval process. Considering that substantial questions of law were pending in similar cases and technical considerations should not defeat substantial justice, the HC exercised discretion to condone the delay favoring the appellant department.

---

---

Issues Involved:
1. Application for condonation of delay in filing the appeal.
2. Explanation for the delay by the revenue department.
3. Opposition by the respondent assessee.
4. Legal principles on condonation of delay.
5. Court's discretion in condoning the delay.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Application for Condonation of Delay in Filing the Appeal:
The revenue department filed an application to condone a delay of 535 days in filing an appeal under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961, against an order dated 08.03.2019 by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Kolkata. The appeal should have been filed by 20.07.2019, but was filed on 04.01.2021.

2. Explanation for the Delay by the Revenue Department:
The department explained the delay as follows:
- The order was received on 22.03.2019.
- Appeal scrutiny report was requested on 26.03.2019 and submitted on 16.05.2019.
- Approval for filing the appeal was obtained on 15.07.2019.
- The judicial folder was sent to the Ministry of Law and Justice on 17.07.2019.
- Various steps, including drafting and approval of the Memorandum of Appeal and the application for condonation of delay, took place between 20.09.2019 and 16.03.2020.
- The delay was attributed to procedural formalities and the COVID-19 pandemic.

3. Opposition by the Respondent Assessee:
The respondent disputed the claimed date of receipt of the order and argued that the department acted negligently and with mala fide intentions. They contended that:
- The department's explanations were vague and lacked merit.
- Specific periods of delay were not explained.
- The conduct of the department was callous and negligent.
- The delay was unreasonable and would cause injustice to the assessee if condoned.

4. Legal Principles on Condonation of Delay:
The court referred to several Supreme Court decisions, including:
- *Post Master General vs. Living Media India Limited* and *Collector (LA) vs. Katiji*, emphasizing that delay should be explained in a rational, common-sense manner.
- *G. Ramegowda vs. Land Acquisition Officer* and *State of Haryana vs. Chandra Mani*, which highlighted that government decisions are collective and procedural delays should be considered.
- *Union of India vs. Central Tibetan Schools Administration*, where a significant delay was not condoned due to lack of sufficient cause.

5. Court's Discretion in Condoning the Delay:
The court acknowledged that while each day's delay was not explained, the period from 15.03.2020 onwards was affected by the COVID-19 lockdown. The court noted that substantial questions of law were involved, which had been entertained in other cases. The court emphasized the need to balance technical considerations against substantial justice.

Conclusion:
The court decided to condone the delay, noting that rejecting the application would result in prejudice and substantial questions of law were pending. The affidavit of apology tendered by the respondent assessee was taken on record. The application for condonation of delay was allowed, and the delay in filing the appeal was condoned.

---