BEFORE THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR TaxCase (feeome Tax Appe^.) No..........:}.^............/2011 ^s Appellant ,, \\ \ _ ^ Assistant Commissioner of QT^\ ^ _,....r^""" Income Tax, Bhilai (CG) P^^^^^^-^RSUS ^•"•"'"";"/' Res^diident ^) ^ r M/s Sewa Singh Oberai & Company, Durg (CG) Old rvu^M- T>aJUj(^<Xjo^l^x<A, l^^^^i C. ^ INCQMEJTAX APPEAL U/S 26QA QF INCOMfi TAX ACT 1961 f^- r€ I; •^s^ HIGH COURT OF CHRATTISGARH AT BILASPUR APPELLANT RESPQNDENT TAXCASENO. 45 of 2011 Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Bhilai (CG) VERSUS M/s. Sewa Singh Oberai & Company, Durg (C.G.) INCOME TAX APPEAL U/S 260 A OF INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 Coram : Hon'ble Shri Satish K. Agnihotri & "f Hon'ble Shri Radhe Shyam Sharma, JJ. Present: Shri Rajeev Shrivastava, Advocate for the appellant. ORDER (Passed on 19th day ofOctober, 2011) Per SATISH K. AGNIHOTRI, J. I.^L. No. 1, application for condonation ofdelay under section 260A (2A) ofthe Income Tax Act, 1961. 1, The instant appeal arises from the order dated 08.09.2006 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Nagpur Bench, Nagpur in I.T.A. No. 109/Nag/2006, for the assessment year 2003-04 with the application for condonation ofdelay. 2. There is a delay of 1713 days in filing this appeal. Sub-section (2A) of Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short 'the Act, 1961)) prescribes statutory period oflimitation i.e. 120 days from the date ofthe order appealed against, is passed. Sub-section (2A) of the Act, 1961provides that ifthe High Court is satisfied that there was sufficient cause for not filing the appeal within a specified period, the High Court may condone the delay and admit the appeal. 11^ ^^.^ ^. 1 ^^y" "1^^2^;pk" 3. In the application for condonation of delay, the reason assigned by the appellant is that the several cases have been decided on the same issue. Afiter passing ofthe impugned order dated 08.09.2006, records were sent to the standing counsel on 10.11.2007 but it appears that the record did not reach to the then standing counsel within time. Since there was no provision under the Act, 1961 for condonation of delay, thus, it appears that the appeal could not be filed. After getting the information about non filing ofthe appeal, the Revenue applied to the Tribunal to get the certified copy of the entire record and in that process, a delay of 1713 days have taken place. The grounds are sufficient to condone the delay in the interest ofjustice. 4. For condonation of delay in filing the appeal, the appellant has to give sufficient cause explainirig the delay, step by step. In normal course, the delay should be explained on day to day basis. (See: Commissioner oflncome Tax v. Indian Hotels Co. Ltd. and Lanka Venkateshwarlu (Dead) By Lrs. v. State of Andhra Pradesh & Others2, para 27, 28 and 29). 5. The reasons assigned by the appellant is not sufficient in order to invoke jurisdiction of the High Court, under section 260A (2A) of the Act, 1961 to condone the inordinate delay of 1713 days. Needless to mention that after such a long time, the rights ofthe parties must have been settled. Thus, I.A. No. 1, for condonation of delay, is rejected. 6. Consequently, the appeal also stands dismissed. Sd/- Satish K. Agnihotri Judge 1MANU/SC/0831/2011 2 (2011)48cc 363 Sd/- R.S. Sharma judge