JUDGMENT

Girish Kathpalia, J.

1.

"2. We are constrained to pen down a detailed order as it appears that all our counseling to Government and Government authorities have fallen on deaf ears i.e., the Supreme Court of India cannot be a place for the Governments to walk in when they choose ignoring the period of limitation prescribed. We have raised the issue that if the Government machinery is so inefficient and incapable of filing appeals/petitions in time, the solution may lie in requesting the Legislature to expand the time period for filing limitation for Government authorities because of their gross incompetence. That is not so. Till the Statute subsists, the appeals/petitions have to be filed as per the Statues prescribed.

.....

.....

8. Looking to the period of delay and the casual manner in which the application has been worded, we consider appropriate to impose costs on the petitioner- State of Rs.25,000/- (Rupees twenty five thousand) to be deposited with the Mediation and Conciliation Project Committee. The amount be deposited in four weeks. The amount be recovered from the officers responsible for the delay in filing the special leave petition and a certificate of recovery of the said amount be also filed in this Court within the said period of time."

Our anguish while examining this matter can be aptly expressed by borrowing the above quoted portion from the judgment in the case of The State of Madhya Pradesh & Ors vs Bherulal, (2020) 10 SCC 654 decided almost three years ago by the Hon'ble Supreme Court.

2. By way of this application (CM No. 37496/2023) brought under Section 151 of the Civil Procedure Code, the appellant/revenue has sought condonation of delay of 498 days in filing the appeal under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act. Irrespective of the provision quoted in its title, the application is treated as application under Section 260A(2A) of the Income Tax Act. The application being completely bereft of even circumstances, what to say of sufficient cause explaining the delay, the respondent/assessee opted not to file a formal reply but strongly opposed the application. We heard both sides.

3. For convenience and better analysis, the relevant paragraphs of this delay condonation application are quoted below:

"2. That an Appeal challenging the impugned order passed by Hon'ble the ITAT has to be presented within 120 days of pronouncement of the impugned order and the time required for obtaining the certified copy of the order is to be excluded. It is however, respectfully submitted that in the present case there has been a delay of 498 as on 31.05.2023, in filing the accompanying Appeal.

3. That the Applicant/ Appellant respectfully submits that there has been delay due to sufficient cause inspite of due procedure followed by the Applicant/ Appellant in filing the said Appeal. The said delay in filing the appeal has arisen in bona-fide circumstances and for no fault or omission or negligence on the part of the Applicant/ Appellant herein and earnest efforts had been made by the Applicant/ Appellant to expedite the process at various stages of finalising the accompanying Appeal, within the earliest possible time.

4. That the Appeal has been filed on the basis of records maintained in the office of concerned Assessing officer, The Appeal has to be processed through official channel/hierarchy and the Appeal has been filed by the Appellant as he is authorized to file Appeal under the Income Tax Act, 1961.

5. That several orders including the Assessment order, CIT (Appeals) order and orders of the ITAT have been filed along with the Appeal.

6. That as per the requirements of the High Court Rules and orders, the typed copies of all the orders are required to be filed along with the Appeal. Beside this, several other compliances have to be fulfilled by the Assessing Officer, which has caused an inadvertent delay".

4. In support of this application, learned counsel for the applicant/ revenue argued that the power to co