“Tremendous Pressure” Not Ground: Calcutta HC Refuses To Condon 1,480-Day Income Tax Department Appeal Delay

The Calcutta High Court has refused to condone a 1,480-day delay in filing an income tax appeal, holding that the Income Tax Department cannot explain such an inordinate delay merely by pointing to its heavy workload and the number of matters it was handling.

A Division Bench of Justice Rajarshi Bharadwaj and Justice Sudip Deb found that the Department had not shown due diligence in pursuing the appeal. The explanation offered for the delay was not sufficient to justify condoning it.

The court was hearing an application by Principal Commissioner of Income Tax-1, Kolkata, seeking condonation of the 1,480-day delay in filing an appeal against an order concerning Pricewaterhouse Coopers Private Limited.

The Department told the court that it had received the impugned order on July 29, 2021. It said that from August 31, 2021 to February 6, 2022, its functioning was affected by the Covid-19 pandemic and it could not prepare the appeal without proper instructions.

It also argued that this period should be exempted from limitation in view of the Supreme Court's order extending the limitation period during the pandemic.

For the period from February 7, 2022 to April 18, 2024, the Department said certain restrictions prevented it from preparing the appeal. It also pointed to voluminous records lying on different floors of its office, which made it difficult to immediately trace the records relating to the matter.

The Department further cited the number of matters being handled by its office at the same time.

The company opposed the application. It argued that even after giving the Department the benefit of the Supreme Court's Covid-related extension of limitation, there was still a delay of 1,116 days for which no proper explanation had been given.

The court found that the Department's main explanation was that the office handling the matter was dealing with several cases at the same time. It noted that the Department had effectively shifted the burden for the delay onto the office handling the case.

The court held that this explanation could not justify condoning the 1,480-day delay.

“This explanation offered to us by the appellant cannot be a ground for condoning such inordinate delay of 1480 days. Apart from making a bald assertion that the department was on tremendous pressure in handling so many matters, no case has been made out for which we can exercise our discretion to condone delay.”

The court also noted that the memorandum of appeal, stay petition, and application for condonation of delay had been finalised and forwarded to the advocate handling the matter on September 24, 2025. Yet, the appeal was filed only on December 15, 2025.

The Department did not explain what prevented it from filing the appeal during this period, the court noted.

Under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, an appeal to the High Court ordinarily has to be filed within 120 days of receiving the order. The provision also allows the High Court to admit an appeal filed after 120 days if it is satisfied that there was “sufficient cause” for the delay.

In simple terms, the provision gives the High Court discretion to accept a delayed appeal when the delay is supported by sufficient cause.

The court noted that a liberal approach does not mean overlooking negligence, inaction or lack of bona fides. It also referred to Supreme Court decisions holding that the conduct of the litigant and the circumstances behind the delay are relevant while deciding whether there was sufficient cause.

In this case, the bench found that the Department had failed to demonstrate bona fides and due diligence in pursuing the appeal.

“...no due diligence has been shown by the appellant in pursuing the matter. The explanation offered by the appellant is questionable and not acceptable to us. In fact, according to us this is not an explanation but mere excuse for not filing the appeal within time.”

The bench further observed that the Department's conduct in pursuing the appeal was “utterly lethargic, tardy and indolent”.

The court accordingly dismissed the application for condonation of delay. Since the delay was not condoned, the income tax appeal was also dismissed as time-barred..

For Appellant: Soumen Bhattacharya, Ankan Das, Raunak Seal, Advocates.

For Respondent: J.P. Khaitan, Senior Advocate, Pratyush Jhunjhunwala, Sakshi Singhi, Advocates.