DCIT Vs Kumar A. S. Construction (Patna High Court)
The Patna High Court considered an application seeking condonation of delay of eight months and twenty-four days in filing two miscellaneous income tax appeals. Initially, the Court observed that the application did not disclose sufficient grounds explaining why the appeals were not filed within the prescribed limitation period. The appellant was permitted to file a supplementary affidavit, wherein it was stated that the memorandum of appeal was initially filed without annexing the certified copy of the impugned judgment, leading to the appeal being treated as defective. It was further submitted that the certified copy was received later, and during the intervening period, the standing counsel was unwell and underwent an eye operation. The case was subsequently handled by another counsel who noticed the defects and took steps to file the certified copy.
The respondent opposed the application, contending that no valid explanation was provided in the original application and that the plea of illness and procedural lapses was raised only subsequently. It was also argued that the appellant failed to specify when the certified copy was applied for and received. Reliance was placed on a Supreme Court judgment emphasizing that delay can be condoned only when the explanation is bona fide and not indicative of negligence.
