Section 253(5) of the Income Tax Act
Income-tax Act, 2025: s.362
Section 253(5) falls under section 253 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, which corresponds to section 362 (Appeals to Appellate Tribunal) of the Income-tax Act, 2025.
Read section 362 of the 2025 Act
Correspondence checked against the ICAI tabular mapping of the two Acts and the BharatTax.co section commentary.
The decision most relied on for Section 253(5) is Balakrishnan v. M. Krishnamurthy (7 SCC 123), cited in 368 of the 740 judgments on BharatTax that turn on this section.
Leading authorities on Section 253(5)
The Supreme Court outlines the principles for condoning delay in filing appeals, stating that a litigant's lapse is not always a bar if the explanation is bona fide and not a dilatory strategy. Courts should show utmost consideration to suitors and prioritize substantial justice unless the delay is deliberately to gain time.
For condoning delay, the term 'sufficient cause' must be interpreted liberally and purposively to advance justice. Delay not tainted by mala fides, gross negligence, or recklessness, and based on honestly obtained legal advice, constitutes sufficient cause.
Where a reasonable cause for delay in filing an appeal exists, the period of delay may not be a relevant factor for condonation. The court has condoned even substantial delays, such as nearly 21 years, based on the presence of a reasonable cause.
When substantial justice and procedural technicalities are in conflict, especially in cases involving non-deliberate delay, the cause of substantial justice must be prioritized. The opposing party cannot claim a vested right to benefit from injustice due to such delays.
The Assessing Officer must record clear satisfaction in the assessment order that the assessee concealed particulars of income or furnished inaccurate particulars, for initiating penalty proceedings under section 271(1)(c). Without such recorded satisfaction, the penalty proceedings lack jurisdiction and are unsustainable in law.
The principle of 'sufficient cause' for condoning a delay in filing an appeal should be construed liberally, particularly when the assessee would not have gained from the delay or when the delay arose from reasonable grounds like wrong professional advice.
The Supreme Court emphasizes that courts assist only those who are vigilant and do not slumber over their rights, establishing a stricter approach against condoning significant or unexplained delays in filing appeals.
The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal can condone significant delays in filing an appeal, such as 180 days, if the appeal was filed after a Supreme Court judgment clarified the legal position, demonstrating a reasonable cause for the delay.
There is no legal presumption that every person knows the law, and the maxim 'ignorantia juris non excusat' does not imply universal legal awareness. This principle is applied when evaluating whether a taxpayer's genuine belief or ignorance of law impacts their liability for penalties or constitutes reasonable cause.
Sufficient cause for condoning delay means an adequate and non-blameworthy reason that prevented a party from acting within the prescribed time, requiring an explanation that would satisfy a cautious person. It is not an elastic concept covering long, negligent, or stale claims.
