The main legal point established in the judgment is the emphasis on 'sufficient cause' as indicated in Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963, and the need for a justice-oriented approach in condoning delay.

ORDER :

ARAVIND KUMAR, J.

1. This is an application filed by the Revenue seeking condonation of delay of 474 days in preferring the Appeal under section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 in Tax Appeal (F) No. 17463 of 2021 (Tax Appeal No. 657 of 2022).

2. The applicant has contended that order of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (for short ‘ITAT’) was received on 30.07.2018 and a rectification application came to be filed on 14.02.2019 which was dismissed by ITAT as time barred by order dated 28.08.2019. Being aggrieved by the same, Revenue had filed Special Civil Application No. 13024 of 2020 against the order dated 28.08.2019 passed by ITAT and said Special Civil Application also came to be dismissed on 22.10.2020 and as such Tax Appeal No. 657 of 2022 was filed on 17.07.2021 against the order of the ITAT dated 08.06.2018. Hence, appellant is seeking for condonation of delay.

3. For reasons best known, additional affidavit has been filed by Mr. Sandeep Jain, Principal Commissioner of Income Tax (Central) Ahmedabad narrating the sequential events and also contending that Department was pursuing the matter and as it was under bona fide reason, Appeal was not filed on time and seeks for condonation of delay.

4. Respondent on being notified, has filed a reply affidavit opposing the delay being condoned and denying each and every averments made in the application as well as in the additional affidavit. It has been contended that there is delay of more than 900 days in filing the Tax Appeal and to overcome the judgment of this Court, present Appeal has been filed with inordinate delay. It is further contended that in respect of Mr. Mehul Lavji Mehta, who is son of assessee, there was an order passed by the Tribunal under similar circumstances on 22.09.2017, against which the Revenue had filed an appeal under Section 260A in Tax Appeal No. 208 of 2018 on 20.02.2018 and this Court vide order dated 18.06.2018 passed in Tax Appeal No. 208 of 2018 having observed and directed the Revenue to file application for rectification without bar of limitation, Revenue had filed an application before the Tribunal on 16.07.2018 which has been dismissed vide order dated 24.08.2022 and Revenue being conscious and well aware of the fact that against the order of the Tribunal, an Appeal had to be filed under section 260A, it could not have filed an application for rectification before the ITAT in the present case and pursue its grievance after having failed in its attempts therein, the Revenue cannot be allowed to file Appeal belatedly, inasmuch as the Revenue was aware and conscious of the order of the Tribunal not only passed in the present case but also in respect of the son of the present assessee which had resulted in dismissal on 22.09.2017, against which an Appeal had been filed in Tax Appeal No. 208 of 2018 and as such Revenue cannot feign ignorance. By relying upon the judgment of High Court of Bombay in the case of Commissioner of Income-Tax-4 versus Harinagar Sugar Mills Ltd. reported in (2015) 276 CTR 473 Bombay, respondent has prayed for the application for condonation of delay being dismissed and consequently, Appeal being dismissed.

5. We have heard the arguments of Mr. Varun K. Patel, learned counsel appearing for Revenue and Mr. Bandish Soparkar, learned counsel appearing for respondent. They have reiterated the contentions raised in their respective pleadings and have sought for grant of the prayers sought for therein.

6. Having heard the learned advocates appearing for the respective parties, we are of the considered view that following point would arise for our consideration :

“Whether the delay of 474 days in filing the Appeal deserves to be condoned or rejected ?”

7. While considering an application for condonation of delay, it is not the length of delay but cause for delay which would be of paramount consideration. If the cause shown is just and sufficient which is falling within four corners of “sufficient cause” as indicated in Secti