TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
When case Id is present, search is done only for this
of 
of 
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of of 
All Case Laws
of of All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of <h1>109-day delay in filing appeal excused after satisfactory explanation of Chief Commissioner approval and preparing appeal beyond 120-day limit</h1> <h3>Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax vs. M/s North Eastern Electric Power Corporation Ltd.</h3> The HC condoned a 109-day delay in filing the appeal, finding the applicant's explanation-delay caused by obtaining approval from the Chief Commissioner ... Delay of beyond 120 days in filing appeal - applicant has submitted that the approval for filing an appeal was granted only on 14.08.2023 and that on account of preparation of appeal papers and getting final approval from the office of the Chief Commissioner of Income-Tax, the delay has crept in - HELD THAT:- We are of the view that the delay has got to be explained from the last date of time granted under the Act till the date of filing of the case, which otherwise means that the delay of beyond 120 days has to be necessarily explained. In this case, the applicant has given sufficient reasons for condoning the delay. In the light of the judgments of the Apex Court in Postmaster General and Others V. Living Media India Limited and another [2012 (4) TMI 341 - SUPREME COURT] and N.Balakrishnan V. M. Krishnamurthy [1998 (9) TMI 602 - SUPREME COURT] if the delay has been satisfactorily explained, the same can be condoned. These judgments have also been followed by a Division Bench of the Madras High Court in the case of M/s.Ruskim Sea Foods Limited [2018 (2) TMI 2142 - MADRAS HIGH COURT] To be precise, even if the delay is short and there is no proper explanation forthcoming, the delay need not be condoned. Similarly, despite the fact that the delay is enormous, sufficient reasons are given thereunder, the delay can be condoned. Thus, the delay is also too short and sufficient reasons have been given, which are acceptable by us to condone the delay of 109 days. The respondent challenged condonation of delay, noting the ITAT order dated 12.12.2022 was received on 31.03.2023 and the statutory 120-day period for filing an appeal had lapsed. The applicant explained that approval to file the appeal was granted only on 14.08.2023 and delays arose from preparation of appeal papers and securing final approval from the Chief Commissioner of Income-Tax; no prejudice to the respondent was asserted. Relying on Apex Court precedent (Postmaster General v. Living Media India Ltd., (2012) 3 SCC 563; N. Balakrishnan v. M. Krishnamurthy, (1998) 7 SCC 124) and a Division Bench authority, the Court held that delay must be satisfactorily explained and may be condoned. The Court repeated: 'Ordinarily, the 'Condonation of Delay' is a matter of discretion ... the Petitioner / concerned litigant is to offer / ascribe sufficient reasons or project sufficient cause or good cause to condone the delay with a view to enable the Concerned Court to take a liberal view with a view to secure the ends of justice.' Delay of 109 days was condoned; registry directed to number and list the appeal.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
