Condonation cannot be treated as an anticipated privilege to Income Tax Dept: Calcutta HC dismisses Appeal [Read Order]

The Calcutta High Court dismissed an appeal filed by the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax-9, Kolkata, for being filed beyond the limitation period.

The Court held that condonation of delay cannot be treated as an anticipated privilege for Government bodies and that the Income Tax Department failed to properly explain the delay of 278 days.

The Revenue Department had filed an appeal against the order dated 29th January, 2025, regarding Kvell Properties Private Limited & Ors. While the Department calculated the delay as 212 days, the Court noted that the actual delay was 278 days.

It was observed that the Department could only explain the cause for a delay of approximately 84 days, leaving a significant portion of the delay unaccounted for. Furthermore, the Court noted that the certified copy of the impugned order was applied for on 29th July, 2025, nearly six months after the order was passed.

The counsel for the respondents relied on the Supreme Court’s decision in Shivamma (Dead) by LRs. vs. Karnataka Housing Board & Ors. (2025). It was argued that the jurisprudence regarding the condonation of delay had shifted following the Postmaster General vs. Living Media India Limited(2012) judgment. The respondents submitted that the previous liberal approach toward Government bodies had been discarded.

The Division Bench of Justice Rajasekhar Mantha and Justice Rai Chattopadhyay referred to the Shivamma decision, which explicitly held that Government bodies and their instrumentalities are not entitled to any special consideration outside the scope of Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963. It was observed that the rigours of Section 5 and the requirement to explain each day of delay must be strictly applied to State agencies just as they are to private individuals.

The Court concluded that the "meritorious case" approach, which previously allowed for a liberal concession of delay in Government appeals, is no longer valid. It held that condonation is a matter of exception and not a privilege. Finding that the appellant had not sufficiently justified the 278-day delay, the Court dismissed the condonation application.

The main appeal was dismissed as barred by limitation, and the connected application was also dismissed. The Court ordered no costs and directed parties to act on a server copy of the order.

Support our journalism by subscribing to Taxscan premium. Follow us on Telegram for quick updates