Patna HC Rejects Income Tax Appeals After 8-Month Delay Blamed on Lawyer’s Illness and Procedural Oversight [Read Order]

ThePatna High Court has dismissed two miscellaneous appeals filed by the Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, after rejecting the department’s application seeking condonation of the delay of eight months and twenty-four days in filing the appeals under Section 260A(2A) of the Income Tax Act, 1961.

The matter arose from orders passed in ITA No. 180/PAT/2012 and ITA No. 184/PAT/2012, against which the department filed appeals in March 2018. However, the memorandum of appeal was treated as defective as it did not annex the certified copy of the impugned judgment. The certified copy was later received on 16th March 2018, but the defect was not cured in time.

Counsel for the appellant argued that the delay was due to the illness of the Standing Counsel, who had undergone an eye operation, and a subsequent change of departmental officers. It was submitted that only after the new counsel took charge was the defect noticed and rectified.

They strengthened their arguments by relying on Principal Commissioner of Income Tax (Central) v. Suncity Projects Pvt. Ltd. (2023), where the Supreme Court condoned a delay of 86 days. However, the High Court distinguished the present case, noting that the delay here was far longer and that the department had already received the certified copy within the limitation period but failed to act diligently.

On the other hand, counsel for the respondent contended that no valid grounds were mentioned in the original application, and the supplementary affidavit merely created a story of illness and administrative lapses.

Also, they relied on the Supreme Court ruling in Maniben Devraj Shah v. Municipal Corporation of Brihan Mumbai (2012) 5 SCC 157, which held that “if the explanation given by the applicant is found to be concocted or he is thoroughly negligent in prosecuting his cause, then it would be a legitimate exercise of discretion not to condone the delay.”

After considering the submissions, the high court noted that a certified copy was not handed over to the advocate in time, leading to the delay.

The Division Bench of Justice Bibek Chaudhuri and Justice Chandra Shekhar Jha observed that “Unintentional delay cannot be equated with the laches and negligence of the departmental officers.”

Accordingly, the Court rejected the application for condonation of delay and dismissed both appeals.

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