Patna High Court
Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, Circle 3, GayaversusM/s Kumar A. S. Construction, Ashok Nagar
- Decided
- Disposal
- DISMISSED
Holding
The application for condonation of delay under section 260A(2A) was rejected as the appellant failed to demonstrate a sufficient and bona‑fide cause.
Summary
The appellant sought condonation of an eight‑month‑and‑twenty‑four‑day delay in filing two miscellaneous appeals under section 260A(2A) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The delay was attributed to the appellant’s counsel’s illness and the late receipt of a certified copy of the impugned judgment, which was initially omitted from the memorandum of appeal. The respondent argued that the appellant had not provided any contemporaneous explanation and cited Supreme Court decisions that refused condonation where the cause was not bona‑fide. The Court examined the factual matrix, the statutory provision, and the cited precedents (Maniben Devraj Shah v. Municipal Corporation of Brihan Mumbai and Principal Commissioner of Income Tax (Central) v. Suncity Projects Pvt. Ltd.). Finding the appellant’s explanation unsatisfactory and the delay excessive, the Court rejected the condonation application and dismissed both appeals.
Issues considered
- Whether the delay of eight months and twenty‑four days in filing the miscellaneous appeals can be condoned under section 260A(2A) of the Income Tax Act, 1961.
- Whether the appellant’s reasons (illness of counsel and late receipt of certified copy) constitute a sufficient and bona‑fide cause for condonation.
Legislation cited
- Income Tax Act, 1961 — s. 260A(2A)
Subjects
- condonation of delay
- limitation period
- Income Tax Act
- section 260A(2A)
- miscellaneous appeal
- certified copy of judgment
- bona fide cause
- Supreme Court precedent
Judgment
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
Patna High Court MA No.201 of 2018(11) dt.16-03-2026
2/5
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 27th 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 14th 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 16th 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
Patna High Court MA No.201 of 2018(11) dt.16-03-2026
3/5
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 no negligence on the part of the
applicant and the cause shown for the delay does not lack
bona fides, then it may condone the delay. If, on the other
hand, the explanation given by the applicant is found to be
concocted or he is thoroughly negligent in prosecuting his
cause, then it would be a legitimate exercise of discretion
not to condone the delay.”
Patna High Court MA No.201 of 2018(11) dt.16-03-2026
4/5
5. Learned advocate on behalf of the appellant also
files a judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of
The Principal Commissioner of Income Tax (Central) Vs.
Suncity Projects Pvt. Ltd. reported in (2023) 290 TAXMAN
0374 (SC). In paragraph ‘2’ of the judgment, the Hon’ble
Supreme Court has observed as hereunder:
“2. By the impugned judgment and order, the High Court
has refused to condone the delay of 86 days in preferring
the appeal. We are of the opinion that in the facts and
circumstances the case, the High Court ought to have
condoned the delay of 86 days in preferring the appeal
and ought not to have been too technical in dismissing
the appeal on the ground of delay. The impugned order
passed by the High Court refusing to condone the delay of
86 days and dismissing the appeal on the ground of delay
of 86 days is unsustainable.”
6. In Suncity Private Ltd. (supra), the Hon’ble
Supreme Court condoned the delay of 86 days, however, in the
instant appeal the delay is about eight (8) months and twenty
four (24) days. Though, the appellant did not mention either in
the petition for limitation or in the supplementary affidavit about
the date of filing of the application and receipt of the certified
copy of the impugned judgment.
7. We find from the copy of the impugned judgment
that the application was filed on 12th March, 2018 and certified
Patna High Court MA No.201 of 2018(11) dt.16-03-2026
5/5
copy was received on 16th March, 2018. The memorandum of
appeal was filed on 14th March, 2018. The period of limitation
expired on 16th March, 2018, when the department already
received the certified copy of the impugned judgment. However,
it may be a fact that the department did not hand-over the
certified copy of the impugned judgment to the learned
advocate.
8. It is true that the Court should take a lenient
approach in condoning the delay in filing an application or
appeal. But, unintentional delay cannot be equated with the
laches and negligence of the departmental officers.
9. For the reasons stated above, we do not find any
merit in the instant application under section 260A(2A) of the
Income Tax Act and application for condonation of delay is
rejected.
10. In view of rejection of the application, both
appeals shall also be dismissed.
(Bibek Chaudhuri, J)
veena/rajeev- (Chandra Shekhar Jha, J)
U
Checking your session…