Landmark Judgements of Supreme Court on Section Section 260A(2A) [Condonation of delay]

Assessee sought for condonation of delay of four and half years in filing appeal against order of Tribunal on ground of ailment of manager but High Court declined to condone delay on ground that there was nothing on record to show that manager was suffering from ailments which did not permit him to take initiative for filing of appeal, SLP against said decision was to be dismissed Assessee-company approached High Court for condonation of delay in filing appeal against order of Tribunal almost after four and half years on ground that its legal cases were looked after by its manager who was not keeping well and ultimately died in year 2017 and assessee could realise about non-filing of appeal in month of March, 2019 and immediately appeal was preferred. High Court observed that there was nothing on record to show that manager was suffering from ailments which did not permit him to take initiative for filing of appeal and further it was otherwise duty of assessee to watch affairs of its company and declined to condonedelay. On facts, SLP against said order was to be dismissed. [In favour of revenue] – [Mani Mandir Sewa Nyas Samiti Ramghat Ayodhya v. CIT (2020) 274 Taxman 277 : 119 taxmann.com 383 (SC)]

Condonation of delay of 1754 days: If the stand of the Applicant in the Affidavit that he had no knowledge about the passing of the order is not expressly refuted by the Respondent, the question of disbelieving the stand of the Applicant cannot arise. For this reason, indulgence should be shown to the Applicant by condoning the delay

In case of Senior Bhosale Estate (HUF) v. ACIT, the Hon’ble Supreme Court by setting aside the order of the High Court and relegated the parties before the High Court, by allowing the civil application(s) for condonation of 1754 days delay in filing the concerned appeal.

The Appellant(s) in this case pleaded before the court that they had no knowledge about the order passed against them by the ITAT on 29.12.2003 until they were confronted with the auction notices in June 2008 issued by the competent authority. The Appellant(s) filed appeal within prescribed time along with subject applications on 19.07.2019. The respondents did not expressly refute the stand taken by the applicant(s) about the fact that they were not aware about the order issued by ITAT on 29.12.2003.

Hon’ble Supreme Court while allowing the condonation of delay of 1754 days observed that unless fact is not refuted by the respondent(s) the question of disbelieving the stand taken by the Applicant(s) cannot arise thus Hon’ble High Court should have shown leniency to the appellant(s) by condoning the delay in filing the concerned appeal(s). - [Senior Bhosale Estate (HUF) v. ACIT (2019) 419 ITR 732 : 112 taxmann.com 134 : (2020) 269 Taxman 472 (SC)]

Having regard to importance of matter Supreme Court directed High Court to condonedelay in filing appeal by revenue and hear appeal on merits where main cause of delay was difference of opinion between two officers

High Court refused to condonedelay in filing revenue's appeal and dismissed same being barred by limitation. It was found that main cause of delay was difference of opinion between two officers and ultimately legal opinion was taken and it was decided to file appeal. In view of aforesaid and having regard to importance of matter, High Court should have heard appeal on merits. [In favour of revenue] -

[CIT (Exemptions) Pune v. Progressive Education Society (2019) 262 Taxman 21 : 103 taxmann.com 163

(SC)]

Ex-Chairman’s health ailment was sufficient cause shown by appellant for condonation of delay of 224 days in filing appeals, High Court ought to have accepted same

Appellant filed appeals before High Court for condonation of delay of 224 days in filing appeals and an affidavit explaining delay was filed. High Court refused to accept explanation given by appellant and rejected Notice of Motion. Main reason given in affidavit was that Ex-Chairman and shareholder of appellant company who was looking after affairs of appellant, was suffering from health ailment due to which he was hospitalized, who subsequently died. Explanation given by appellant was not accepted by High Court and High Court refused to condone delay of 224 days in filing appeal. Since sufficient cause was shown for condonation of delay in filing appeals, High Court ought to have accepted same. Thus, order of High Court was to be set aside and delay in filing appeals was to be condoned and matter was to be restored before High Court to be heard on merits. [In favour of assessee/remanded back] - [Aakash Lavlesh Leisure (P) Ltd. v. ITO (2019) 103 taxmann.com 248 (SC)]

Supreme Court explains rules for condonation of delay - Condonation of delay of 916 days: While a liberal approach is to be taken in the matter of condonation of delay & the consideration does not depend on the status of the party, even so the condonation of long delay should not be automatic since the accrued right or adverse consequence to the opposite party is also to be kept in perspective. While considering condonation of delay, routine explanation is not enough but it should be in the nature of indicating “sufficient cause” to justify the delay which will depend on the backdrop of each case and will have to be weighed carefully by the Courts based on the fact situation (Mst Katiji 1987(2) SCC 107 distinguished)

From a consideration of the view taken by this Court through the decisions cited supra the position is clear that, by and large, a liberal approach is to be taken in the matter of condonation of delay. The consideration for condonation of delay would not depend on the status of the party namely the Government or the public bodies so as to apply a different yardstick but the ultimate consideration should be to render even handed justice to the parties. Even in such case the condonation of long delay should not be automatic since the accrued right or the adverse consequence to the opposite party is also to be kept in perspective. In that background while considering condonation of delay, the routine explanation would not be enough but it should be in the nature of indicating “sufficient cause” to justify the delay which will depend on the backdrop of each case and will have to be weighed carefully by the Courts based on the fact situation.

In the matter of condonation of delay and laches, the well accepted position is also that the accrued right of the opposite party cannot be lightly dealt with. In that regard, rather than taking note of the hardship that would be caused to the respondent No.13 as contended by the learned Senior Counsel, what is necessary to be taken note is the manner in which the respondent No. 11 DMRC has proceeded in the matter. The respondent No. 11 DMRC is engaged in providing the public transport and for the said purpose the Government through policy decision has granted approval to generate resources through property development and in that regard the development as earlier indicated, is taken up. Pursuant thereto the respondent No.11 has received a sum of Rs.2 18.20 crores from respondent No.13 as far back as in the year 2008. The said amount as indicated is used for its projects providing metro rail service to the commuting public. In such circumstance, if at this stage the inordinate delay is condoned unmindful of the lackadaisical manner in which the appellant has proceeded in the matter, it would also be contrary to public interest.

Therefore, taking into consideration all these aspects of the matter, we are of the opinion that not only the learned Single Judge was justified in holding that the writ petition inter alia is hit by delay and laches but the decision of the Division Bench in dismissing the LPA on the ground of delay of 916 days is also justified

and the orders do not call for interference. – [University of Delhi v. Union of India & Ors. - Date of Judgement 17.12.2019 (SC)]

Condonation of delay of 1754 days: If the stand of the Applicant in the Affidavit that he had no knowledge about the passing of the order is not expressly refuted by the Respondent, the question of disbelieving the stand of the Applicant cannot arise. For this reason, indulgence should be shown to the Applicant by condoning the delay

In case of Senior Bhosale Estate (HUF) v. ACIT, the Hon’ble Supreme Court by setting aside the order of the High Court and relegated the parties before the High Court, by allowing the civil application(s) for condonation of 1754 days delay in filing the concerned appeal.

The Appellant(s) in this case pleaded before the court that they had no knowledge about the order passed against them by the ITAT on 29.12.2003 until they were confronted with the auction notices in June 2008 issued by the competent authority. The Appellant(s) filed appeal within prescribed time along with subject applications on 19.07.2019. The respondents did not expressly refute the stand taken by the applicant(s) about the fact that they were not aware about the order issued by ITAT on 29.12.2003.

Hon’ble Supreme Court while allowing the condonation of delay of 1754 days observed that unless fact is not refuted by the respondent(s) the question of disbelieving the stand taken by the Applicant(s) cannot arise thus Hon’ble High Court should have shown leniency to the appellant(s) by condoning the delay in filing the concerned appeal(s). - [Senior Bhosale Estate (HUF) v. ACIT - Date of Judgement : 07.11.2019 (SC)]

Condonation of delay of 1662 days: The High Court should not take a technical approach and refuse to condone the delay when appeals for earlier years with identical issues are already pending before it - Where High Court refused to condonedelay in filing appeal on ground that appeals on identical issues for earlier years were pending before Court and, thus, assessee was under a bona fide belief that relief, if any, granted in those appeals pending before Court would enure to his benefit for subject assessment year as well, in view of fact that High Court had to decide question of law between parties in any case in respect of earlier assessment years, it should not have taken such a technical view of dismissing appeal in instant case on ground of delay and, thus, impugned order was to be set aside

Assessee took out a notice of motion before High Court for condonation of delay in filing accompanying appeal. Reason assigned for delay was that four appeals on identical issues for earlier years were pending before Court and, thus, assessee was under a bona fide belief that relief, if any, granted in those appeals pending before Court would enure to his benefit for subject assessment year as well. High Court rejected assessee’s explanation and refused to condonedelay. Accordingly, appeal was dismissed being barred by limitation. On facts, High Court should not have taken such a technical view of dismissing appeal in instant case on ground of delay, when it had to decide question of law between parties in any case in respect of earlier assessment years. Therefore, impugned order was to be set aside and matter was to be remanded back to High Court for disposal afresh on merits. [In favour of assessee/Matter remanded] (Related Assessment year : 2004-05) - [Anil Kumar Nehru v. ACIT, Mumbai (2019) 260 Taxman 372 : 101 taxmann.com 191 (SC)]

Condonation of abnormal delay of 1371 days in removing office objections: High Court refused to condone delay and held that Dept must "set its own house in order by sacking and removing the delinquent and negligent officials or penalising them otherwise so as to subserve larger public interest". The Supreme Court reversed this holding High Court ought to have condoned the delay

and not dismissed the appeal. Dept to pay costs of Rs. 1 lakh (from taxpayers' funds) for condonation of delay

No doubt, there is a long delay in removing the objections, we are of the opinion that in a case like this the High Court should have condoned the delay in removing the office objections and heard the matter on merits. However, for the said delay caused by the appellant, the appellant shall pay cost of Rupees one lac within four weeks, which shall be deposited with the Supreme Court Bar Association Lawyers’ Welfare Fund. In view of the above, we condone the delay in removing office objections and remit the matter to the High Court for consideration of the case on merits. The appeal is allowed as indicated above. – [CIT v. Reliance Industries Ltd. – Date of Judgement : 26.10.2018 (SC)]

High Court has inherent jurisdiction to condonedelay in filing an appeal under section 260A and, thus, delay of fourteen days in filingappeal before High Court under section 260A was to be condoned

Order dated 20.07.2009 passed by the High Court of Judicature at Bombay wherein delay of fourteen days in filing the appeal filed under Section 260-A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 was not condoned on the ground that there was no such power given to the HighCourt for condoning the delay. Subsequently, sub-section 2A of Section 260-A of the Act was inserted which empowers the High Court to condone the delay. The question whether insertion of sub-section 2A is prospective or retrospective need not be gone into in the present case, as in our considered opinion, the High Court has inherent jurisdiction to condone such delay of fourteen days. We, therefore, condone the delay of fourteen days and direct the High Court to decide the appeal on merits in accordance with law. The civil appeal is disposed of in the above terms. [In favour of assessee] – [CIT v. Pheroza Framroze & Co. (2017) 247 Taxman 100 : 80 taxmann.com 261 (SC)]

Code of Criminal Procedure , 1973 Section 300. Fodder scam - Delay - The Court has to ensure that owing to some delay on part of the machinery, miscarriage of justice should not take place. It is also contended that the power under Section 5 of the Limitation Act should be exercised to advance substantial justice- Delay was condoned - Severe strictures passed against the High Court for "inconsistent decision-making" and passing orders which are "palpably illegal, faulty and contrary to the basic principles of law" and by ignoring "large number of binding decisions of the Supreme Court" and giving "impermissible benefit to accused". Law on condonation of delay explained. CBI directed to implement mechanism to ensure that all appeals are filed in time [Constitution of India , Article 20(2)]

Reliance was placed for condonation of delay ; the State of Tamil Nadu v. M. Suresh Rajan (2014) 11 SCC 709 is apt in which the time consumed in taking opinion on change of Government was held to be sufficient cause so as to condone the delay. Reliance has also been placed on Indian Oil Corporation Ltd. & Ors. v. Subrata Borah Chowlek, etc. (2010) 14 SCC 419 in which there was a delay in filing the appeals in which this Court has observed that Section 5 owes no distinction between State and citizen. The Court has to ensure that owing to some delay on part of the machinery, miscarriage of justice should not take place. It is also contended that the power under Section 5 of the Limitation Act should be exercised to advance substantial justice by placing reliance on State of Nagaland v. Lipok AO & Ors. (2005) 3 SCC 752. The Court condoned the delay .The Court also passed severe strictures against the High Court for "inconsistent decision making" and passing orders which are "palpably illegal, faulty and contrary to the basic principles of law" and by ignoring "large number of binding decisions of the Supreme Court" and giving