INCOME TAX OFFICER (INTERNATIONAL TAXATION) vs. M/S. SHREE BALAJI CONCEPTS
What did the High Court hold?
The High Court condoned the delay of 373 days in filing the Tax Appeal. The Court found the reasons provided by the Revenue in paragraphs 4 to 7 of the application to be justifiable, considering them as administrative reasons that occasioned the delay. While acknowledging the Respondent's opposition and allegations of inaccuracies, the Court held that the stated reasons for the delay were sufficient to warrant condonation. The Court reasoned that it is open for the assessee to contest the appeal on its merits. Therefore, in the interest of the Revenue, which involves larger public interest, the Court deemed it appropriate to condone the delay. The Miscellaneous Civil Application was made absolute, and the Tax Appeal was directed to be listed for hearing on 10.09.2025. No issue was left undecided; the core issue of condonation of delay was decided.
What were the facts?
The Income Tax Officer (International Taxation) (Applicant/Revenue) filed a Miscellaneous Civil Application (MCA) No. 162 of 2024 seeking condonation of a delay of 373 days in filing a Tax Appeal against an order dated 13.05.2022 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT). The delay was attributed to procedural difficulties in obtaining necessary approvals for filing the appeal. The certified copy of the ITAT's order was received on 01.07.2022. The process involved forwarding the order for scrutiny reports, obtaining approvals from various authorities including the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax (OSD), Chief Commissioner of Income Tax (South Zone), Director General of Income Tax (Investigation), and finally authorization to the Standing Counsel to file the appeal. The case papers were received by the Standing Counsel on 25.10.2023, and the Tax Appeal was filed on 06.11.2023. The assessee (Respondent) opposed the application, alleging inaccuracies in the dates provided by the applicant.
What were the issues?
1. Whether the delay of 373 days in filing the Tax Appeal by the Revenue is liable to be condoned. This issue turns on the interpretation of principles governing condonation of delay, particularly in the context of administrative procedural lapses. Assessee's Arguments: The Respondent (assessee) opposed the condonation of delay, specifically pointing out alleged inaccuracies and falsehoods in the dates provided by the Applicant (Revenue) in the appeal memo, particularly in paragraph 9 of the application. Revenue's Arguments: The Applicant (Revenue) attributed the delay to procedural difficulties in obtaining approvals for filing the Tax Appeal, citing a series of internal communications and approvals required from various tax authorities. The Revenue argued that these administrative reasons justified the delay and that condoning the delay would serve the larger public interest.
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
22 MCA 162 OF 2024.ODT Esha IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY AT GOA MISC. CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 162 OF 2024 IN TAX APPEAL NO. 2593 OF 2023 (F) INCOME
TAX
OFFICER (INTERNATIONAL TAXATION) Versus M/S SHREE BALAJI CONCEPTS … APPLICANT … RESPONDENT *** Ms. Susan Linhares, Standing Counsel for the Applicant. Mr. Hanumant D. Naik, Advocate for the Respondent. CORAM: BHARATI DANGRE & ASHISH SAHADEV CHAVAN, JJ. DATED: 3rd SEPTEMBER 2025 P.C:
Miscellaneous Civil Application No. 162 of 2024 seek condonation of delay of 373 days in filing the present Appeal, raising a challenge to the order dated 13.05.2022 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal.
We have heard Ms. Linhares for the Applicant and perused the Application.
The Application attribute the delay caused due to procedural difficulties in obtaining the approval for filing the Tax Appeal and the Application specifically plead thus: 3rd September 2025 2025:BHC-GOA:1633-DB
22 MCA 162 OF 2024.ODT “4. The Applicant states that certified copy of the impugned Order dated 13.05.2022 was received by the office of the Commissioner of Income Tax (CIT) International Taxation, Bangalore on 01.07.2022. Thereafter on 13.07.2022 the Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax (OSD) (International Taxation) at Bengaluru, forwarded the same to the office of the DCIT (IT), Circle 2(1), Bangalore calling for scrutiny report. However, inadvertently the same was not forwarded to the ITO (IT) Panaji at the same time. Due to this lapse, there was delay in submitting the scrutiny report by the ITO(IT), Panaji.
The Applicant states that on receiving the Scrutiny report from the ITO(IT) Panaji, Goa, the office of the Joint Commissioner (International Taxation) Bengaluru vide letter date 08.08.2023 forwarded the file to the Pr. CIT (OSD), (International Taxation), Bengaluru.
The Applicant states that 11.08.2023, the letter dated 08.08.2023 and file was put up by the ACIT to the CIT for perusal and approval. The Office of the CIT (Int. Taxn.) Bengaluru vide letter dated 14.08.2023 put up the file to the Chief Commissioner of Income Tax, South Zone, Bangalore for proposal for filing further appeal to the High Court. On 28.08.2023, the CIT (IT) put up this notings and the file was put up to the CCIT(IT) SZ for necessary approval for filing appeal to the High Court. The CCIT(IT)SZ approved the proposal for filing the appeal on 28.08.2023. 7. The Applicant states that the file was thereafter put up to the DGIT (Inv.) for necessary concurrence for filing appeal to the High Court, which was agreed to on 29.08.2023. Thereafter, the ACIT (HQ) vide letter put up the file to the Pr.CIT (Int. Taxn.), Bengaluru for approval for further appeal before the Hon'ble High Court.
The Applicant states vide letter dated 05.10.2023, the office of the CIT (Int.Taxn) Benglore authorized the Standing Counsel to file the appeal. The case papers for filing the Tax Appeal was received by the Standing Counsel on 25.10.2023 by post. Thereafter, the Tax Appeal came to be drafted and filed on 06.11.2023.” 3rd September 2025
22 MCA 162 OF 2024.ODT
The Application is strongly opposed by Mr. Naik representing the Respondent and he would in specific, invite our attention to paragraph 9 of the appeal memo where certain different dates are given. According to him, the statements made in paragraph 9 of the Application are incorrect and in his words “false”.
However, we have considered the said submission, but what we find is that the Application has given specific reasons in paragraphs 4 to 7 and we find the reasons to be justifiable as it is for some administrative reasons that the delay has occasioned, which in our opinion deserve to be condoned. In any case, it is open for the Assessee/Respondent to contest the Appeal on merits and therefore, in the interest of the Revenue, which involve larger public interest, we deem it appropriate to condone the delay. The Miscellaneous Civil Application is made absolute in terms of its prayer clause.
We direct the listing of the Appeal for hearing on 10.09.2025. ASHISH SAHADEV CHAVAN, J. BHARATI DANGRE, J. 3rd September 2025 Signed by: ESHA SAINATH VAIGANKAR Designation: Personal Assistant Date: 03/09/2025 20:16:20
Recent GST High Court judgments
Search GST case law →- M/S Larsen And Toubro Limited vs. Joint Commissioner Of Central GST And Anr.Delhi · 27 Oct 2026
- T C Global INDIA Private Limited vs. Principal Commissioner Of Central GST, North DelhiDelhi · 27 Oct 2026
- Kamlasana Impex Private Limited vs. Director General Of GST Intelligence (Hq) Delhi) & Anr.Delhi · 27 Oct 2026
- Ritu Gautam Proprietor Of Ms Heritage International vs. Additional Commissioner Central Goods And Services Tax Appeals Ii Delhi & Anr.Delhi · 27 Oct 2026
- Sutha vs. The State Tax Officer(Inspection-3)Madras · 27 Oct 2026
