TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2026 (9) TMI 389
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ase seeking condonation of 31 days of delay in filing the accompanying appeal with the plea that Learned Income Tax Appellate Tribunal [ referred to as ITAI herein] passed an order on 25.02.2025 and copy of said order was received by the applicant on 06.06.2025. It is averred that the limitation period for 120 days for filing accompanying appeal expired on 04.10.2025. It is averred in Para-2 and Para-3 of the application that delay in filing the accompanying appeal was on account of the fact, that the case records was with Income Tax Officer, Parwanoo; and opinion for preferring the appeal was sought; and the said opinion was thereafter forwarded for approval to the competent authority -Applicant-Principal Commissioner of Income Tax-1, Chandigarh; and upon approval, instructions were issued to the Standing Counsel for the Department to draft the accompanying appeal; and the Office of the authorized signatory who signs memorandum of appeal is at Chandigarh; and there were also festival breaks during this period. In this backdrop it was averred that delay is neither wilful nor intentional but due to the aforesaid reasons and therefore, it was prayed that delay in filing the accompany....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....on merits and therefore, prayer was made to dismiss the appeal seeking condonation of delay. 2(iii). In the rejoinder, the Applicant-Principal Commissioner of Income Tax-1, has denied the averments made by the Non-applicant/ Respondent in the Reply-Affidavit and has reiterated the contents of application with the prayer to condone the delay. It is further reiterated that the explanation offered reveals sufficient cause and earnest bona fide efforts were made inter se the Departmental Authorities to file the Reply within time but on account of the reasons spelt out in Para-2 of the application and reiterated in Para-2 of the Rejoinder, the accompanying appeal could not be filed within the limitation period and the delay is neither wilful nor intentional nor due to negligence or want of due diligence by the Applicant-Authorities. It is averred in the Rejoinder that the reliance placed on judgment of Shivamma [supra] is distinguishable on facts, for the reason, that the subject matter in the said case related to massive delay of 3966 days which was marred by an administrative lapse without any explanation and sufficient cause for the said delay. Applicant-Authorities have further r....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... by the Applicant-Authorities. 3. Heard, M/s Neeraj Sharma and Ishaan Kashyap, Learned Counsel, for the applicant and Mr. Deepak Vyas [through Video-Conferencing] and Ms. Soma Thakur, Learned Counsel, for the non-applicant/respondent. ANALYSIS: 4. Taking into account the entirety of facts and circumstances, this Court is of the considered view that the claim of the Applicant- Authorities for seeking condonation of 31 days of delay in filing the accompanying appeal, assailing the order dated 25.02.2025 passed by Learned Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Chandigarh, deserves to be allowed, for the following reasons:- 4(i). Perusal of the application and the rejoinder filed by the Applicant-Authorities establish that the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal passed the order dated 25.02.2025 and copy of order was received by the Applicant-Authorities on 06.06.2025. Though a period of 120 days of limitation for filing the appeal expired on 04.10.2025, but the appeal could not be filed within the said period. The Applicant -Authorities have given an explanation by showing sufficient cause for not filing the accompanying appeal within the limitation period. Perusal of the contents....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....Tax Act neither expressly provides that appellate authority (High Court) shall become functus officio after the expiry of 120 days nor does Section 260A (2A) expressly provides for the "restrictive expressions" ["but not thereafter" or "not exceeding"] then, in such an eventuality, appellate court retains the power to exercise discretion to condone delay, subject to the legal compliance of "sufficient cause" in the light of the broad principles mandated by the Honble Supreme Court in the case of Jittu Yadav vs State of Chhattisgarh and Others, Criminal Appeal No 2911 of 2026, decided on 27.05.2026 ; and that too, in a case, where the explanation offered establishes sufficient cause and the delay, if any, was bona fide and had crept in despite the due diligence, sensitiveness of the Applicant-Authorities in pursuing their rights promptly. 4(iii). Plea and attempt of the Non-applicant/ Respondent in touching the merits of controversy by contending that the Applicant-Authorities have no case on merits cannot be of any assistance to the Non-Applicant/Respondent for the reason, that as per the mandate of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Shivamma [supra] entering the merits ....