ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. M/S SEWA SINGH OBERAI and COMPANY
What did the High Court hold?
The High Court held that the reasons assigned by the appellant for the delay of 1713 days were not sufficient to invoke its jurisdiction under Section 260A(2A) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, to condone such an inordinate delay. The Court noted that while Section 260A(2A) allows for condonation of delay if the High Court is satisfied that there was sufficient cause, the appellant's explanation, which included the time taken for record transfer and obtaining certified copies, did not meet the threshold for 'sufficient cause' for such a prolonged delay. The Court also observed that after such a long time, the rights of the parties would likely have been settled. Therefore, the application for condonation of delay was rejected. Consequently, the appeal itself was dismissed.
What were the facts?
The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Bhilai (the appellant) filed an appeal before the High Court of Chhattisgarh at Bilaspur under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The appeal was against an order dated 08.09.2006 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Nagpur Bench, Nagpur, in ITA No. 109/Nag/2006, pertaining to the assessment year 2003-04. The appeal was filed with a significant delay of 1713 days. The appellant filed an application for condonation of this delay under Section 260A(2A) of the Act. The respondent in the appeal was M/s. Sewa Singh Oberai & Company, Durg.
What were the issues?
1. Whether the High Court has the jurisdiction to condone the delay of 1713 days in filing the appeal under Section 260A(2A) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, based on the reasons provided by the appellant? The appellant contended that the delay occurred because several cases were decided on the same issue, and after the impugned order, records were sent to the standing counsel on 10.11.2007. It was stated that the record did not reach the standing counsel in time, and since 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 the delay. The appellant argued that these grounds were sufficient to condone the delay in the interest of justice. The revenue did not record any specific arguments against the condonation of delay in the provided text.
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.^L. 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. No. 109/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 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short 'the Act, 1961)) prescribes statutory period oflimitation i.e. 120 days from the date ofthe order appealed against, is passed. Sub-section (2A) of the Act, 1961provides that ifthe 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.
11^ ^^.^ ^. 1 ^^y" "1^^2^;pk"
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. Afiter 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. After getting the information 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 explainirig 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 Venkateshwarlu (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, is rejected.
Consequently, the appeal also stands dismissed. Satish K. Agnihotri Judge 1MANU/SC/0831/2011 2 (2011)48cc 363 R.S. Sharma judge
Recent GST High Court judgments
Search GST case law →- Shining Steel Through Its Proprietor Kartik Gupta vs. Union Of INDIA & Ors.Delhi · 27 Oct 2026
- M/S Redamancy World Through Its Proprietor Sanjay Kumar Goel vs. Central Board Of Indirect Taxes And Customs & Ors.Delhi · 27 Oct 2026
- M/S Arj Exim INDIA vs. Additional Commissioner Of CGST, Appeals-Ii, New Delhi And OrsDelhi · 27 Oct 2026
- The State Of Bihar Through The Commissioner Of State Tax vs. Kaushlendra KumarPatna · 27 Oct 2026
- Ayush Sureshchandra Shah vs. State Of GujaratGujarat · 27 Oct 2026
