ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. M/S SEWA SINGH OBERAI and CO.
What did the High Court hold?
The High Court held that while Section 260A(2A) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, allows for condonation of delay if sufficient cause is shown, the reasons provided by the appellant were not sufficient to condone the inordinate delay of 1713 days. The Court noted that the appellant's explanation for the delay, including the time taken for records to reach the standing counsel and the subsequent process of obtaining a certified copy, did not constitute a step-by-step explanation of the delay as required. The Court also observed that after such a long period, the rights of the parties would likely have been settled. Therefore, the application for condonation of delay (I.A. No. 1) was rejected. Consequently, the appeal itself was dismissed.
What were the facts?
The appeal was filed by the Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Bhilai (appellant) against an order dated 08.09.2006 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Nagpur Bench, Nagpur in I.T.A.202/Nag/2006 for the assessment year 2003-04. The appeal was filed before the High Court of Chhattisgarh at Bilaspur under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961. There was a delay of 1713 days in filing the appeal. The appellant filed an application for condonation of delay under Section 260A(2A) of the Act. The respondent is M/s. Sewa Singh Oberai & Company, Durg.
What were the issues?
1. Whether the High Court has the power to condone the delay in filing an appeal under Section 260A(2A) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, if sufficient cause is shown. Assessee's arguments: The appellant (Revenue) contended that the delay occurred because several cases were decided on the same issue. After the impugned order, records were sent to the standing counsel on 10.11.2007, but they did not reach him in time. As there was no provision for condonation of delay at that time, the appeal could not be filed. Upon learning of the non-filing, the Revenue applied for a certified copy of the record, leading to a delay of 1713 days. These reasons were considered sufficient to condone the delay in the interest of justice. Revenue's arguments: The judgment does not record any specific arguments made by the respondent (assessee).
Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?
Section 260A,Section 260A(2A)
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Cause title — parties, addresses and appearances
ORDER (Passed on 19th day ofOctober, 2011) Per SATISH K. AGNIHOTRI, J. I.A. No. 1, application for condonation ofdelay under section 260A (2A) ofthe Income Tax Act, 1961. 1. The instant appeal arises from the order dated 08.09.2006 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Nagpur Bench, Nagpur in I.T.A.202/Nag/2006 for the assessment year 2003-04 with the application for condonation ofdelay.
There is a delay of 1713 days in filing this appeal. Sub-section (2A) of Section 260A ofthe Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short 'the Act, 1961)) prescribes statutory period oflimitation i.e. 120 days from the date of the order appealed against, is passed. Sub-section (2A) of section 260A the Act, 1961 provides that if the High Court is satisfied that there was sufficient cause for not filing the appeal within a specified period, the High Court may condone the delay and admit the appeal.
^T^ ^'^••^ ^' ,f" "'^ w ^ 'ri "-•-^T?^.-
In the application for condonation of delay^ the reason assigned by the appellant is that the several cases have been decided on the same issue. After passing ofthe impugned order dated 08.09.2006, records were sent to the standing counsel on 10.11.2007 but it appears that the record did not reach to the then standing counsel within time. Since there was no provision under the Act, 1961 for condonation of delay, thus, it appears that the appeal could not be filed. Afiter getting the mformation about non filing ofthe appeal, the Revenue applied to the Tribunal to get the certified copy of the entire record and in that process, a delay of 1713 days have taken place. The grounds are sufficient to condone the delay in the interest ofjustice. For condonation of delay in filing the appeal, the appellant has to give sufficient cause explaining the delay, step by step. In normal course, the delay should be explained on day to day basis. (See: Commissioner oflncome Tax v. Indian Hotels Co. Ltd and Lanka Venkatesh^arlu (Dead) By Lrs. v. State of Andhra Pradesh & Others2, para 27, 28 and 29). The reasons assigned by the appellant is not sufficient in order to invoke jurisdiction of the High Court, under section 260A (2A) of the Act., 1961 to condone the inordinate delay of 1713 days. Needless to mention that after such a long time, the rights ofthe parties must have been settled. Thus, I.A. No. 1, for condonation of delay, isrejected. Consequently, the appeal also stands dismissed. Satish K. Agnihotri Judge R.S. Sharma judge ^ J 1MANU/SC/0831/2011 2(2011)4SCC363
Recent GST High Court judgments
Search GST case law →- M/S Utkal Suppliers,Ganjam vs. Assistant Commissioner Of CT And GST, Ganjam-I Circle,GanjamOrissa · 28 Oct 2026
- M/S Kotdwar Steel Limited vs. Office Of Hte Deputy CommissionerUttarakhand · 28 Oct 2026
- M/S Kotdwar Steel Limited vs. Office Of The Deputy CommissionerUttarakhand · 28 Oct 2026
- M/S Kotdwar Steel Limited vs. Office Of The Deputy CommissionerUttarakhand · 28 Oct 2026
- M/S Govindjee Dairy Milk Private Limited vs. Central Goods And Services TaxRajasthan · 27 Oct 2026
