TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2026 (9) TMI 877
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... appeal. The parties have filed their respective affidavit. 2. We have also heard the parties. 3. The Learned Advocate appearing for the appellant submitted that there are sufficient grounds for condoning the delay and accordingly prayer has been made to condone the delay and allow the instant application. 4. The Learned Senior Counsel for the respondent vehemently opposed such prayer and contended that no ground has been made out for condoning such inordinate delay of 1480 days. 5. According to the Learned Senior Counsel for the respondent, even after taking into consideration of the Apex Court's order, suo motu extending the period of limitation during Covid pandemic, there is a delay of 1116 days in preferring the instant app....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....stated that since the appellant's office had to handle many matters at the same time, further delay had been caused. 10. What it appears from the averments made in the application that the principle ground of delay was, since appellant's office/department was handling so many cases at the same time, it was not possible for the appellant to make the instant appeal ready. 11. It also appears from the averments made in the said application that the appellant had shifted the entire burden of delay in not preferring the appeal within time on the office who was handling the matter. 12. A case sought to be made out that since the concerned office was overburdened in handling many time barred matters as well as other matters and was busy i....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....des of the appellant so far as pursuing this appeal are questionable and the explanation offered to the Court is not acceptable to us. 17. Section 260A(2)(a) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 contemplates that the appeal shall be filed within one hundred twenty days from the date on which the order appealed against is received by the assessee or Principal Chief Commissioner or Chief Commissioner or Principal Commissioner or Commissioner. Section (2A) of Section 260A also contemplates that the High Court may admit an appeal after the expiry of the period of one hundred and twenty days referred to in clause (a) of Sub-Section (2), if it is satisfied that there was sufficient cause for not filing the same within that period. 18. What is import....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....le dealing with an application for condonation of delay, for the courts are not supposed to legalise injustice but are obliged to remove injustice. 21.2. (ii) The terms "sufficient cause" should be understood in their proper spirit, philosophy and purpose regard being had to the fact that these terms are basically elastic and are to be applied in proper perspective to the obtaining fact-situation. 21.3. (iii) Substantial justice being paramount and pivotal the technical considerations should not be given undue and uncalled for emphasis. 21.4. (iv) No presumption can be attached to deliberate causation of delay but, gross negligence on the part of the counsel or litigant is to be taken note of. 21.5. (v) L....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... with fraud, misrepresentation or interpolation by taking recourse to the technicalities of law of limitation. 21.12. (xii) The entire gamut of facts are to be carefully scrutinised and the approach should be based on the paradigm of judicial discretion which is founded on objective reasoning and not on individual perception. 21.13. (xiii) The State or a public body or an entity representing a collective cause should be given some acceptable latitude. 22. To the aforesaid principles we may add some more guidelines taking note of the present day scenario. They are: 22.1. (a) An application for condonation of delay should be drafted with careful concern and not in a haphazard manner harbouring the notion th....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... unnecessarily to face such a litigation. It is so as the fundamental principle is that the Courts are required to weigh the scale of balance of justice in respect of both parties and the said principle cannot be given a total go by in the name of liberal approach. It is also important to consider as held by the Apex Court in the said decision of Esha Bhattacharjee vs. Managing Committee of Raghunathpur Nafar Academy & Ors. (supra), that there is a distinction between inordinate delay and a delay of short duration or few days, for to the former doctrine of prejudice is attracted whereas to the later it may not be attracted. That apart, the first one warrants strict approach whereas the second one calls for a liberal delineation. 24. In t....