IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Miscellaneous Appeal No.201 of 2018 ======================================================

Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, Circle - 2, Gaya.

... ... Appellant Versus M/s Kumar A. S. Construction, Ashok Nagar, Bhat Bigha, Gaya (PAN AAECA0928L.

... ... Respondent ======================================================

with Miscellaneous Appeal No. 202 of 2018 ======================================================

Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, Circle 3, Gaya ... ... Appellant Versus M/s Kumar A. S. Construction, Ashok Nagar, Bhat Bigha, Gaya (PAN AAGFK7513A.

... ... Respondent ======================================================

Appearance :

(In Miscellaneous Appeal No. 201 of 2018)

For the Appellant/s : Mrs.Archana Sinha, Sr. Advocate Mr.Alok Kumar, Advocate Ms.Richa Rajiv Singh, Advocate Ms. Komal, Advocate Ms.Nisha Kumari, Advocate Mr.Kamal Raj, Advocate For the Respondent/s : Mr.Anuj Kumar, Advocate (In Miscellaneous Appeal No. 202 of 2018)

For the Appellant/s : Mrs.Archana Sinha, Sr. Advocate Mr.Alok Kumar, Advocate Ms.Richa Rajiv Singh, Advocate Ms. Komal, Advocate Ms.Nisha Kumari, Advocate Mr.Kamal Raj, Advocate For the Respondent/s : Mr.Narendra Kumar Singh, Advocate ======================================================

CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE BIBEK CHAUDHURI and HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE CHANDRA SHEKHAR JHA

ORAL ORDER

(Per: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE BIBEK CHAUDHURI)

11 16-03-2026 Re:- I.A. No. 01 of 2025 This is an application praying for condonation of delay in filing the Miscellaneous Appeal No. 201 of 2018 and Miscellaneous Appeal No. 202 of 2018 by eight (8) months and twenty four (24) days.

2. Previously, the application was taken up for hearing, however, the Court found that no ground as to why the appellant failed to file the appeal within the period of limitation was extended, where it is pointed out that the learned Advocate for the appellant craved leave of this Court to file a supplementary affidavit. Prayer was allowed. By filing the supplementary affidavit on 27^th of February, 2026, it is stated by the appellant that the appeal was filed against the impugned order passed in ITA No. 180/PAT/2012 & ITA No. 184/PAT/2012 on 14^th March, 2018. However, the Memorandum of Appeal did not annex the certified copy of the impugned judgment, therefore, it was treated to be defective by the department.

3. Subsequently, on 16^th November, 2018, the learned counsel for the appellant received the certified copy of the impugned judgment and it was filed. It is submitted on behalf of the appellant that in the meantime, the Standing Counsel on behalf of the appellant was suffering from illness. He had to undergo eye operation, thereafter, the department handed over the appeal to the present learned counsel and then only, she noticed the defect(s) and directed the department to file certified copy of the impugned judgment, only then, the impugned judgment was filed.

4. Learned Advocate on behalf of the respondent, on the other hand, submits that the appellant did not mention any ground in the main application filed under section 260 A(2A) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. Only in the supplementary affidavit, the appellant has subsequently created a story of illness of the learned advocate, change of concerned officer of the IT Department etc. However, it is not stated even in the supplementary affidavit that when the appellant applied for certified copy of the impugned judgment and when it was received. On this ground, it is submitted by the learned advocate for the respondent that the Hon’ble Supreme Court refused to condone the delay in Maniben Devraj Shah Versus Municipal Corporation of Brihan Mumbai reported in (2012) 5 SCC 157. Paragraph ‘24’ of the said judgment is relevant and is quoted hereunder:-

“24. What colour the expression “sufficient cause” would get in the factual matrix of a given case would largely depend on bona fide nature of the explanation. If the court finds that there has been