TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2026 (8) TMI 1194
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....axation) to the Chief Commissioner of Income Tax, Mumbai on 30.08.2024. After considering the report and after obtaining clarifications, it is stated that the Chief Commissioner of Income Tax (International Taxation), Mumbai, vide letter dated 30.09.2024, directed the filing of the aforesaid Appeal before this Court. In pursuance thereto, it is the case of the Applicant/Revenue that all the relevant documents were called for and were forwarded to the panel counsel for drafting of the Appeal. This process was completed by 30.12.2024. It is stated that subsequently the Appeal memo which was forwarded to the Commissioner of Income Tax (International Taxation) was settled and received on 14.01.2025. Further, as the procedure required, approval of the competent authority and finalization of the Appeal Memo was received on 22.01.2025 and thereafter, the Appeal was filed on 10.02.2025. In these circumstances, it is submitted that there is a bona fide delay of 156 days in filing of the Appeal. It is contended by the Applicant/Revenue that the delay was neither intentional nor willful and it was because of the said reasons as mentioned and the process which was required to be followed for f....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....quate and enough reason which prevented him to approach the court within limitation and if the Applicant is not found to be having a sufficient cause, the court would not condone the delay. On behalf of the Respondent, reliance is also placed on the decision of the Division Bench of this Court in Ornate Traders Pvt. Ltd. vs. Income-tax Officer. (2009) 312 ITR 193 : 2008 SCC OnLine Bom 1465. Although, it is referred to in the reply affidavit, however, during the course of submissions, no submission is made on the basis of this judgment. 4. Thus, the contention of the Respondent as seen from the reply affidavit is primarily that the reasons which are set out in the memo of the Interim Application do not provide sufficient cause and that what has been set out as the dates on which various procedural steps preceding the filing of the Appeal, cannot be taken as a sufficient explanation for condoning the delay. The reply affidavit explains that even the dates set out by the Applicant to demonstrate substantial and unexplained delay at each stage, when considered in light of instructions issued by the CBDT Instruction No. 7 of 2011 dated 24.05.2011, which prescribes the detailed instru....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....rovided by Section 5 of the Limitation Act, in the event, sufficient cause has been made out. The term "sufficient cause" as set out in Sections 4 and 5 of the Limitation Act has been jurisprudentially considered in several decisions of the Supreme Court. The recent decisions in this regard, although not cited on behalf of the Respondent, are placed for our consideration on behalf of the Applicant. 7. The question is as to whether the reasons which are set out by the Applicant, seeking condonation of delay of 156 days, which in our opinion, is not an extremely gross period of delay, need to be accepted. We find that the Courts have consistently taken a view that a liberal approach is required to be adopted by the Court in matters of condonation of delay. In Saroj Kumar Pradhan (supra), the Supreme Court referring to the celebrated decision in the case of Mst. Katiji (supra) and also in the case of Lipok AO (supra), observed that the Courts cannot lose sight of the fact that bureaucratic lethargy at times exhibited should not entail in dismissal of matter on the ground of delay and in such circumstances the cause espoused by the State cannot be rejected, or in other words liberal....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....the decisions in: (i) Collector, Land Acquisition, Anantnag & Anr. vs. Mst. Katiji & Ors. (supra) (ii) State of Nagaland vs. Lipok AO & Ors. (supra) (iii) Balwant Singh (Dead) vs. Jagdish Singh & Ors. 2010 (8) SCC 685 (iv) Lanka Venkateswarlu (Dead) Thr. Lrs.vs. State of A. P. & Ors. (2011) 4 SCC 363. (v) Office of The Chief Postmaster General vs. Living Media India Ltd. & Anr. (supra) (vi) Esha Bhattacharjee vs. Managing Committee of Raghunathpur Nafar Academy & Ors. (2013) 12 SCC 649. (vii) The State of Manipur & Ors. vs. Koting Lamkang (2019) 10 SCC 408. (viii) University of Delhi vs. Union of India & Ors. (2020) 13 SCC 745. (ix) G. Ramegowda, Major & Ors. vs. Special Land Acquisition Officer, Bangalore (supra) (x) State of Haryana vs. Chandra Mani & Ors. (1996) 3 SCC 132. (xi) Special Tahsildar, Land Acquisition, Kerala vs. K. V. Ayisumma (supra) 9. In conclusion, the Supreme Court has observed that the decisions reflect that there cannot be any quarrel that the Court has stepped in to ensure that substantive rights of the parties and the State are not defeated at the threshold....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e balanced. It is held therein as hereunder: (SCC pp. 131-32, paras 15-16) "15. Equities can be balanced by denying the appellants' interest for the period for which they did not approach the Court. The substantive rights of the appellants should not be allowed to be defeated on technical grounds by taking hyper-technical view of self-imposed limitations. In the matter of compensation for land acquisition, we are of the view that approach of the court has to be pragmatic and not pedantic. 16. The principles regarding condonation of delay particularly in land acquisition matters, have been enunciated in LAO v. Katiji, wherein it is stated in para 3 as under: (SCC p. 108) 3. The legislature has conferred the power to condone delay by enacting Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963 in order to enable the courts to do substantial justice to parties by disposing of matters on "merits". The expression "sufficient cause" employed by the legislature is adequately elastic to enable the courts to apply the law in a meaningful manner which subserves the ends of justice that being the life-purpose for the existence of the institution of courts. It is common knowle....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....s one of the circumstances to be taken into account in using the discretion. The relevant observations in that regard are required to be noted, which read thus: "8. The proof by sufficient cause is a condition precedent for exercise of the extraordinary restriction (sic discretion) vested in the court. What counts is not the length of the delay but the sufficiency of the cause and shortness of the delay is one of the circumstances to be taken into account in using the discretion. In N. Balakrishnan v. M. Krishnamurthy it was held by this Court that Section 5 is to be construed liberally so as to do substantial justice to the parties. The provision contemplates that the court has to go in the position of the person concerned and to find out if the delay can be said to have resulted from the cause which he had adduced and whether the cause can be recorded in the peculiar circumstances of the case as sufficient. Although no special indulgence can be shown to the Government which, in similar circumstances, is not shown to an individual suitor, one cannot but take a practical view of the working of the Government without being unduly indulgent to the slow motion of its wheels. ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ng it on the table for considerable time causing delay - intentional or otherwise - is a routine. Considerable delay of procedural red tape in the process of their making decision is a common feature. Therefore, certain amount of latitude is not impermissible. If the appeals brought by the State are lost for such default no person is individually affected but what in the ultimate analysis suffers, is public interest. The expression "sufficient cause" should, therefore, be considered with pragmatism in a justice-oriented approach rather than the technical detection of sufficient cause for explaining every day's delay. The factors which are peculiar to and characteristic of the functioning of the governmental conditions would be cognizant to and requires adoption of pragmatic approach in justice-oriented process. The court should decide the matters on merits unless the case is hopelessly without merit. No separate standards to determine the cause laid by the State vis-à-vis private litigant could be laid to prove strict standards of sufficient cause. The Government at appropriate level should constitute legal cells to examine the cases whether any legal principles are invo....