1. Appeal filed with 781-day delay in re-presenting tax case appeal. (Para 1 , 2 , 3 )
Back
Next 
2026 Supreme(Online)(Mad) 103014
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
Sushrut Arvind Dharmadhikari, CJ, G. Arul Murugan, J
Principal Commissioner of Income Tax Central Circle 2 (1) Chennai – Appellant
Versus
T.S. Kumarasamy – Respondent
T.C.A.No.SR 120333 of 2026 | C.M.P.Nos.19959, 23043, 22914, 22916, 22918, 22933, 22938, 22945, 22974, 22977, 22995, 22996, 22998, 23038, 23039, 23001, 23020, 23023, 23024, 23036, 23025, 22992, 22920, 22923, 97062, 22925, 23046, 23045, 22982, 22980, 23040 and 23042 of 2026 | TCA SR Nos.78455, 92254, 103637, 111163, 111246, 118467, 120333, 52568, 59570, 72002, 78852, 90666, 92803, 93265, 97264, 97356, 97914, 99014, 103642, 94427, 94488, 111878, 92801, 102116, 91804, 111802, 112782, 93390, 95332, 97839 of 2026
Important Points
Administrative workload and systemic lethargy of government agencies do not constitute 'sufficient cause' for condoning inordinate delays in filing or re-presenting appeals; the State is bound by the law of limitation and must provide plausible, bona fide explanations.
Subject
Taxation - Income Tax
Act Referred
Headnote
(A) Income-tax Act, 1961 - Section 260A - Appellate Side Rules - Order IV Rule 9(4) - Condonation of delay in re-presenting appeal - Extraordinary delay of 781 days - Explanation attributing delay to administrative workload, simultaneous filing of approximately 530 other appeals and voluminous records - Held: Such explanation is vague, generalized and legally unconvincing. (Para 5).
(B) Limitation - State and Government agencies - Liberal view in Government appeals - Held: The law of limitation binds everyone including the Government. Administrative lethargy, laxity, and impersonal bureaucratic machinery cannot serve as a carte blanche to bypass statutory timelines. Courts should not become surrogates for State laxity. (Paras 5, 6(i), 6(iii)).
Facts of the case:
The revenue department filed an application for condonation of delay of 781 days in re-presenting a Tax Case Appeal against an order of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal. The department contended that the delay was caused by a heavy workload, the need to file numerous other appeals simultaneously, and the voluminous nature of the records.
Findings of Court:
The court found that the petitioner failed to provide a coherent accounting of the inaction between 30.01.2024 and 21.03.2026, and that generic assertions of professional busyness are insufficient to condone an inordinate delay.
Issues: Whether administrative workload and procedural encumbrances within a government department constitute "sufficient cause" for condoning a delay of 781 days in re-presenting an appeal.
Ratio Decidendi: Systemic workload and prioritizing other matters do not justify overriding statutory timelines. The State does not stand on an exalted position regarding limitation, and administrative lethargy is not a valid ground for condoning delay, especially when the opposing party has accrued rights due to the lapse of time.
Result: Applications dismissed.
(B) Limitation - State and Government agencies - Liberal view in Government appeals - Held: The law of limitation binds everyone including the Government. Administrative lethargy, laxity, and impersonal bureaucratic machinery cannot serve as a carte blanche to bypass statutory timelines. Courts should not become surrogates for State laxity. (Paras 5, 6(i), 6(iii)).
Facts of the case:
The revenue department filed an application for condonation of delay of 781 days in re-presenting a Tax Case Appeal against an order of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal. The department contended that the delay was caused by a heavy workload, the need to file numerous other appeals simultaneously, and the voluminous nature of the records.
Findings of Court:
The court found that the petitioner failed to provide a coherent accounting of the inaction between 30.01.2024 and 21.03.2026, and that generic assertions of professional busyness are insufficient to condone an inordinate delay.
Issues: Whether administrative workload and procedural encumbrances within a government department constitute "sufficient cause" for condoning a delay of 781 days in re-presenting an appeal.
Ratio Decidendi: Systemic workload and prioritizing other matters do not justify overriding statutory timelines. The State does not stand on an exalted position regarding limitation, and administrative lethargy is not a valid ground for condoning delay, especially when the opposing party has accrued rights due to the lapse of time.
Result: Applications dismissed.
Legal Category Hierarchy
- practice and procedure
- administrative law
- tax law
-
legal procedure
-
appellate side rules
- order iv, rule 9(4) (Para 1)
-
appellate side rules
Advocates:
For the Appellants/Petitioners: D. Prabhu Mukunth Arun Kumar
For the Appellants/Petitioners: D. Prabhu Mukunth Arun Kumar
Table of Contents
2. Department argued delay does not attract Limitation Act and leniency is warranted for government appeals. (Para 3 , 4 )
3. Vague, generalized explanation of administrative workload insufficient to condone extraordinary delay of 781 days. (Para 5 , 6 , 7 )
4. Government agencies do not hold an exalted position and must offer plausible, bona fide explanation for delay. (Para 6 )
5. Condonation applications dismissed; writ appeal SRs rejected; no order as to costs. (Para 7 )
6. Can administrative workload alone justify condonation of inordinate delay in re-presentation?
No; courts require a reasonable, plausible, and bona fide explanation covering the entire period of delay, not generalized administrative excuses. (Para 5 )
7. Do government departments receive special leniency in condonation of delay applications?
No; government agencies do not stand on an exalted position and must also provide a proper explanation for delay. (Para 6 )
8. What standard of explanation is required for condoning a delay in re-presentation?
The explanation must be reasonable, plausible, and bona fide, covering the entire period of delay rather than relying on routine administrative excuses. (Para 5 )
PRAYER IN C.M.P.No.19959 of 2026: Petition under Order IV Rule 9(4) of the Appellate Side Rules to condone the delay of 781 days in re-presenting the tax case appeal.
PRAYER IN T.C.A.No.120333 of 2026: Appeal filed under Section 260A of the Income-tax Act, 1961 against the order dated 7.7.2023 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal "C" Bench, Chennai, in ITA No.876/CHNY/2022.
and batch cases
For Petitioner(s)/ Appellant(s): Mr.D.Prabhu Mukunth Arun Kumar, Senior Standing Counsel
COMMON JUDGMENT
(Delivered by the Hon'ble Chief Justice)
For the sake of convenience, we are referring to the asseverations contained in C.M.P.No.19959 of 2026, as the lead case.
2. In support of the prayer seeking condonation of delay of 781 days in re-presenting the appeal, all that has been stated in the affidavit filed in C.M.P.No.19959 of 2026 is as below:
"3. I submit that the appeal papers were returned by the Registry on 20.01.2024 for correcting certain defects in filing the above appeal. The Tax Case Appeal ought to have been represented on or before 30.01.2024. However, the Tax Case Appeal was represented only on 21.03.2026, thereby causing a delay of 781 days.
....
12. I submit that apart from the above appeals, several other appeals in different cases had to be filed simultaneously to meet the limitation in those cases. In total, around 530 appeals were filed by me after the filing of the above appeals..... Many of these cases also involved voluminous records and there were many connected appeals also arising out of the same ITAT order and each had to be prepared and filed separately. Again, considerably time was required to rectify the returned appeals, compile the necessary documents and complete the filing process. This additional workload combined with the procedural requirements, contributed to the delay in representing the above 31 appeals."
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the delay in re-presentation does not attract the provisions of the Limitation Act and, therefore, a lenient view be taken considering the fact that the department is on appeal. He further submitted that in government appeals, liberal view is to be taken and delay caused by the Standing Counsel is to be condoned.
4. It is no doubt true that application seeking condonation of delay in re-presentation is not subject to the rigorous tests which are usually applied in excusing the delay in a petition filed under Section 5 of the Limitation Act. The Court need not issue notice to the respondent while considering such application and such application has to be considered based on the reasons assigned in the affidavit filed in support thereof by the petitioner.
5. In the case at hand, the explanation offered by the petitioner for the extraordinary delay of 781 days in re-presenting the Tax Case Appeal, attributing it primarily to administrative workload, the simultaneous filing of approximately 530 other appeals, and the voluminous nature of records, is entirely vague, generalized and legally unconvincing. It is a well-settled proposition of law that while dealing with applications for condonation of delay, the Court must look for a reasonable, plausible and bona fide explanation covering the entire period of delay rather than routine administrative excuses. The petitioner has failed to provide a day-to-day or even a coherent month-to-month accounting of the inaction between 30.01.2024 and 21.03.2026, relying instead on generic assertions of professional busyness and procedural encumbrance. Systemic workload or the prioritizing of other matters cannot serve as a carte blanche to bypass statutory timelines or override the valuable rights accrued to the opposing party due to lapse of time. Hence, to say the least, the delay remains fundamentally unexplained.
6. In as much as learned counsel for the Department contented that in government appeals liberal view is to be taken, we are inclined to refer to certain decisions of the Supreme Court, where
