Authority: High Court at Calcutta (Special Jurisdiction – Income Tax)

Order Date: 11 September 2026

Case Overview

  • Parties: Principal Commissioner of Income Tax‑1, Kolkata (appellant) vs. M/s Pricewaterhouse Coopers Private Limited (respondent).
  • Proceedings: Appellant filed ITA No. 51 of 2026, GA 1 of 2026 seeking condonation of a 1480‑day delay in preferring an appeal against an order received on 29 July 2021.
  • Appellant’s Grounds: Claimed that COVID‑19 disruptions from 31 August 2021 to 6 February 2022 halted departmental functioning, invoking the Apex Court’s suo motu extension of the limitation period. Further asserted that from 7 February 2022 to 18 April 2024 additional restrictions and voluminous records caused further delay.
  • Respondent’s Opposition: Argued that even after accounting for the Apex Court order, a delay of 1116 days remained, with no satisfactory explanation; prayed for dismissal of both the condonation application and the appeal.
  • Court’s Findings:
  • The memorandum of appeal, stay petition, and condonation application were ready by 24 September 2025, yet the appeal was filed only on 15 December 2025, with no explanation provided.
  • The appellant’s explanation was deemed a mere excuse, lacking bona fides, showing negligence, lethargy, and over‑reliance on departmental workload.
  • Cited Section 260A(2)(a) & (2A) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, which permits condonation only on “sufficient cause”.
  • Referred to Supreme Court precedents (Shivamma (Dead) By LRS vs Karnataka Housing Board 2025 INSC 1104; Esha Bhattacharjee vs Managing Committee of Raghunathpur Nafar Academy 2013 12 SCC 649) outlining the liberal yet substantive test for “sufficient cause”.
  • Determined that the appellant failed to demonstrate sufficient cause, with conduct characterized as “utterly lethargic, tardy and indolent”.

Final Outcome

  • The application for condonation of delay (GA 1 of 2026) is dismissed.
  • As a direct consequence, the instant appeal is dismissed as time‑barred.
  • No order as to costs.
  • Parties may obtain an urgent certified copy of the order upon compliance with formalities.

Topics: Tax Litigation, Condonation of Delay, Judicial Discretion