Dismissed¶29

Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, Circle 3, Gaya v. M/s Kumar a. S. Construction, Ashok Nagar

Patna HC16 Mar 2026MA/202/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

condonation of delay; section 260A(2A) Income Tax Act 1961; miscellaneous appeal; defective memorandum of appeal; certified copy; sufficient cause; departmental laches and negligence; Maniben Devraj Shah (2012) 5 SCC 157; Suncity Projects (2023) 290 TAXMAN 0374 (SC); income tax appeals dismissed; Patna High Court; ITA No. 180/PAT/2012; ITA No. 184/PAT/2012

What did the court decide?

The condonation application fails because the appellant disclosed neither in the petition for limitation nor in the supplementary affidavit the date of filing of the application for and the date of receipt of the certified copy of the impugned judgment. ¶23

Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, Circle 3, Gaya Vs M/s Kumar a… — Income Tax | Patna HC (2026)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Dismissed

¶29

Issue for consideration

Whether the delay of eight months and twenty-four days in filing Miscellaneous Appeals Nos. 201 and 202 of 2018 ought to be condoned under section 260A(2A) of the Income Tax Act, 1961.

¶11

Court's answer

¶23

Ratio / Principle

The condonation of an 86-day delay by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Suncity Projects affords the appellant no assistance because the delay in the instant appeals is about eight months and twenty-four days.

¶23

Key takeaways

Although the Court should take a lenient approach in condoning delay, unintentional delay cannot be equated with the laches and negligence of the departmental officers.ratio¶27
The application for condonation of delay under section 260A(2A) of the Income Tax Act is rejected as devoid of merit.ratio¶28
In consequence of the rejection of the condonation application, both Miscellaneous Appeals Nos. 201 and 202 of 2018 stand dismissed.

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Condonation of delay – Miscellaneous Appeals Nos. 201 & 202 of 2018 (Patna High Court, Bibek Chaudhuri & Chandra Shekhar Jha JJ., order dt. 16-03-2026): I.A. No. 01 of 2025 by the Deputy Commissioners of Income Tax (Circle-2 and Circle-3, Gaya) sought condonation of 8 months 24 days' delay in filing appeals under S. 260A(2A), Income Tax Act, 1961 against the order in ITA Nos. 180/PAT/2012 & 184/PAT/2012 (respondent M/s Kumar A.S. Construction, Gaya). The memorandum filed 14-03-2018 was treated defective as it did not annex the certified copy of the impugned judgment; the certified copy (applied 12-03-2018, received by the department 16-03-2018, the day limitation expired) reached counsel only on 16-11-2018; the supplementary affidavit (27-02-2026) pleaded the Standing Counsel's illness and eye operation and change of counsel but gave no dates. Quoting the sufficient-cause standard in Maniben Devraj Shah (2012) 5 SCC 157 (para 24) and distinguishing Suncity Projects (2023) 290 TAXMAN 0374 (SC) (86-day delay condoned), the Court held that unintentional delay cannot be equated with the laches and negligence of departmental officers, rejected the application and dismissed both appeals.

¶1

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

¶2

======================================================

¶3

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

¶4

... ... Appellant

¶5

		Versus
M/s Kumar A. S. AAECA0928L. ===============	Construction, ==========	Ashok Nagar, Bhat Bigha, ... ... ======================	Gaya (PAN Respondent =======
M ===============	iscellaneous ==========	with Appeal No. 202 of 2018 ======================	=======
Deputy Commission M/s Kumar A. S. AAGFK7513A. ===============	er Of Income Construction, ==========	Tax, Circle 3, Gaya ... Versus Ashok Nagar, Bhat Bigha, ... ... ======================	... Appellant Gaya (PAN Respondent =======
Appearance : (In Miscellaneous App	eal No. 201 of	2018)
For the Appellant/s	: Mrs Mr. Ms. Ms. Ms. Mr.	.Archana Sinha, Sr. Advocate Alok Kumar, Advocate Richa Rajiv Singh, Advocate Komal, Advocate Nisha Kumari, Advocate Kamal Raj, Advocate
For the Respondent/s (In Miscellaneous App	: Mr. eal No. 202 of	Anuj Kumar, Advocate 2018)
For the Appellant/s	: Mrs Mr. Ms. Ms. Ms. Mr.	.Archana Sinha, Sr. Advocate Alok Kumar, Advocate Richa Rajiv Singh, Advocate Komal, Advocate Nisha Kumari, Advocate Kamal Raj, Advocate
For the Respondent/s ===============	: Mr. ==========	Narendra Kumar Singh, Advocate ======================	=======

¶6

CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE BIBEK CHAUDHURI

¶7

and

¶8

HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE CHANDRA SHEKHAR JHA ORAL ORDER (Per: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE BIBEK CHAUDHURI)

¶9

11 16-03-2026

¶10

Re:- I.A. No. 01 of 2025

¶11

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

¶12

Patna High Court MA No.201 of 2018(11) dt.16-03-2026 2/5

¶13

twenty four (24) days.

¶14

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.

¶15

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

¶16

Patna High Court MA No.201 of 2018(11) dt.16-03-2026 3/5

¶17

copy of the impugned judgment, only then, the impugned judgment was filed.

¶18

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:-

¶19

“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.”

¶20

Patna High Court MA No.201 of 2018(11) dt.16-03-2026 4/5

¶21

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:

¶22

“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.”

¶23

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.

¶24

We find from the copy of the impugned judgment that the application was filed on 12^th March, 2018 and certified

¶25

Patna High Court MA No.201 of 2018(11) dt.16-03-2026 5/5

¶26

copy was received on 16^th March, 2018. The memorandum of appeal was filed on 14^th March, 2018. The period of limitation expired on 16^th 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.

¶27

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.

¶28

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.

¶29

In view of rejection of the application, both appeals shall also be dismissed.

¶30

(Bibek Chaudhuri, J)

¶31

veena/rajeev-

¶32

(Chandra Shekhar Jha, J)

¶33

Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, Circle 3, Gaya v. M/s Kumar a. S. Construction, Ashok Nagar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, Circle 3, Gaya v. M/s Kumar a. S. Construction, Ashok Nagar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Prabhat Sharma @ Prabhat Kumar Vs Pushpa Kumari

Rajendra Singh Vs The State of Bihar

Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, Circle 3, Gaya Vs M/s Kumar a. S. Construction, Ashok Nagar

Dudheshwar Sharma Vs Kumari Punam

Manoj Kumar @ Munna Vs Nita Bharti