Revenue's appeals dismissed for three-year delay without condonation despite receiving tribunal order in 2019

Delhi HC dismissed revenue's appeals filed with three-year delay after re-filing. Despite receiving tribunal order on 11.04.2019 with limitation expiring 09.08.2019, revenue filed appeals on 27.05.2022 without seeking condonation. Court found no sufficient cause for delay, noting revenue's lack of sincerity and mere chronological explanation without justification for prolonged periods between procedural stages. Revenue failed to demonstrate circumstances beyond control preventing timely filing. Applications dismissed for failure to establish grounds for condonation.

---

---

Issues Involved:
1. Condonation of delay in re-filing the appeals.
2. Condonation of delay in the original filing of the appeals.
3. Legal principles governing condonation of delay.
4. Evaluation of the sufficiency of the cause for delay.
5. Impact of COVID-19 on the limitation period.
6. Examination of merit in the main appeals as a factor for condonation of delay.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Condonation of Delay in Re-filing the Appeals:
The appellant/revenue sought condonation of delay in re-filing the appeals after removing defects raised by the Registry. The court noted that despite the original filing being beyond the prescribed period, no specific application for condonation of delay in filing the appeals was initially filed. Affidavits were later submitted to explain the delay.

2. Condonation of Delay in the Original Filing of the Appeals:
The court examined the records and heard arguments on the delay in the original filing of the appeals. The appeals were filed under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, assailing the order of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal dated 15.03.2019. The appeals were filed on 27.05.2022 and 20.05.2022, respectively, well beyond the prescribed period.

3. Legal Principles Governing Condonation of Delay:
The court referred to Section 260A(1) and (2) of the Income Tax Act, which mandates a 120-day period for filing an appeal. Section 260A(2A) allows the High Court to admit an appeal after 120 days if there is a sufficient cause for the delay. The court cited various precedents emphasizing that "sufficient cause" must be construed liberally but should not render the law of limitation otiose.

4. Evaluation of the Sufficiency of the Cause for Delay:
The affidavits submitted by the appellant/revenue listed various dates and stages but failed to provide a satisfactory explanation for the delay. The court emphasized that an explanation is required to clarify the circumstances, whereas an excuse is often defensive and lacks credibility. The court found the explanations provided by the appellant/revenue to be mere excuses rather than valid explanations.

5. Impact of COVID-19 on the Limitation Period:
The appellant/revenue argued that the COVID-19 period should be excluded from the limitation period. However, the court noted that the prescribed limitation period expired on 09.08.2019, well before the onset of the pandemic. Therefore, the benefit of the Supreme Court's order on the exclusion of the COVID-19 period was not applicable.

6. Examination of Merit in the Main Appeals as a Factor for Condonation of Delay:
The court examined whether the delay could be condoned if there was merit in the main appeals. However, it cited the Supreme Court's view that the delay should not be condoned merely because there is merit in the case. The court stressed that the responsible officers should bear the consequences of their laxity.

Conclusion:
The court concluded that the appellant/revenue failed to set up any circumstance to satisfy that they were precluded from filing the appeals in time by any cause beyond their control. The delay was not sufficiently explained, and there was no valid reason to condone the delay in re-filing the appeals. Consequently, both applications for condonation of delay were dismissed, and the appeals were dismissed as time-barred.

---