Delay in filing appeal against ITAT order could not justify dismissal; appeal restored and relisted with appearance obligation.

Delay in prosecuting a statutory appeal against an ITAT order was held not to justify dismissal where the High Court dismissed for the appellant's failure to explain events between filing and hearing and for alleged failure to seek listing. The Supreme Court ruled that inability to answer a Bench query and alleged non-effort to get the appeal listed are not valid grounds for dismissal for non-prosecution; exercise of dismissal power was improper. Consequentially the High Court order was set aside and the appeal restored for listing on 26 June 2025, with parties required to appear and no further notice to be issued.

---

---

Issues: Whether the High Court was justified in dismissing the statutory appeal on the grounds that (i) learned counsel for the appellant could not explain events between 2018 and 2024 and (ii) the appellant made no endeavour to get the appeal listed.

Analysis: The question concerns the propriety of dismissing an appeal for perceived non-prosecution based on counsel's inability to answer factual queries and on absence of active efforts by the appellant to obtain listing. The judgment examines principles governing condonation of delay and restoration/continuance of appeals, including that an appeal not being listed ordinarily is not attributable to the appellant and dismissal for such reason requires careful application of procedural fairness. The reasoning addresses whether failure to answer a Bench's factual question or absence of demonstrable efforts to list can, without more, justify dismissal; it concludes such grounds are insufficient in the circumstances and that procedural remedies like restoration and directed listing are appropriate instead of dismissal on those bases.

Conclusion: The impugned dismissal on the cited grounds is set aside; the appeal is restored to the High Court file and directed to be listed as ordered, with all questions on merits left open.

Ratio Decidendi: An appellate court should not dismiss a statutory appeal solely because counsel cannot immediately explain a historical span or because the appellant did not independently pursue listing; dismissal for non-prosecution requires substantiated culpability and procedural fairness, and where absent, restoration and directed listing are the appropriate remedies.

---