Patna High Court Dismisses Income Tax Appeals: Delay Condonation Denied in DCIT Vs Kumar A. S. Construction
Overview of the Case
The Patna High Court recently delivered a significant ruling in DCIT Vs Kumar A. S. Construction, wherein the Revenue's plea seeking condonation of an eight months and twenty-four days delay in filing two miscellaneous income tax appeals was categorically rejected. The Court's decision underscores a well-established principle: procedural negligence on the part of departmental authorities cannot be overlooked merely by invoking a lenient approach toward delay condonation.
The appeals in question — Miscellaneous Appeal No. 201 of 2018 and Miscellaneous Appeal No. 202 of 2018 — arose from orders passed in ITA No. 180/PAT/2012 and ITA No. 184/PAT/2012. The core issue before the Court was whether the explanation furnished by the appellant satisfied the threshold of "sufficient cause" required under Section 260A(2A) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 for condoning the delay.
Background and Procedural History
Initial Filing and the Defect
The Memorandum of Appeal was originally filed on 14th March, 2018, against the impugned order dated the same period. However, a critical procedural lapse led to the appeals being treated as defective — the appellant had failed to annex the certified copy of the impugned judgment at the time of filing.
What makes this lapse particularly significant is the timeline:
- Application for certified copy filed: 12th March, 2018
- Certified copy received by the department: 16th March, 2018
- Memorandum of Appeal filed: 14th March, 2018
- Limitation period expired: 16th March, 2018
The Court noted with emphasis that the certified copy had, in fact, been received by the department on the very date the limitation period expired. Despite this, the certified copy was reportedly not forwarded to the standing counsel in time, resulting in the appeal remaining in a defective state for an extended period.
Supplementary Affidavit Filed Belatedly
When the matter first came up for hearing, the Court observed that the original application filed under Section 260A(2A) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 contained no adequate explanation for the failure to file within the prescribed limitation period. The appellant's counsel sought leave to file a supplementary affidavit, which was permitted by the Court.
The supplementary affidavit, filed on 27th February, 2026, raised the following grounds:
- The standing counsel for the appellant had been suffering from a serious illness and was required to undergo an eye operation during the intervening period.
- Following the standing counsel's incapacitation, the matter was handed over to a new counsel, who identified the defects.
- It was only upon the new counsel's intervention that the certified copy was eventually filed, on 16th November, 2018.