Too Busy To File Is Not A Reason, Court Tells The Tax Department
The Income Tax Department sought to file a very late appeal against PricewaterhouseCoopers. The Calcutta High Court refused to excuse the delay and dismissed the appeal as time-barred.
The Court held the department's explanation — heavy workload and voluminous records — was a mere excuse, not an explanation. Even after the Covid-period extension, the delay was about 1,116 days, and the department had shown no due diligence; it could not even explain why finished papers sat for months. Its conduct was lethargic, tardy and indolent. Delay was not condoned and the appeal was dismissed.
- Workload is not sufficient cause. The government gets no special pass on delay.
- Even the Covid extension did not save it — well over three years remained.
- Finished papers still sat unfiled for months, unexplained.
- Condonation is discretionary, not a right, the Court said.
- Court
- High Court at Calcutta
- Bench
- Justice HON'BLE JUSTICE RAJARSHI BHARADWAJ, Justice HON'BLE JUSTICE SUDIP DEB
- Citation
- ITA No. 51 of 2026
- Case
- ITA No. 51 of 2026
- Decided
- 11 September 2026
- Outcome
- Condonation of delay refused; income tax appeal dismissed as time-barred
The delay
The Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, Kolkata, appealed against a tribunal order in favour of PricewaterhouseCoopers Private Limited, and asked the Court to condone a delay of 1,480 days.
The department said it received the order in July 2021, that Covid disrupted work until February 2022, and that from then until April 2024 restrictions, scattered voluminous records and a heavy caseload prevented it from preparing the appeal.
Why the Court refused
Even taking the benefit of the Supreme Court's order extending limitation during the pandemic, the delay was 1,116 days.
The Court found the department had simply shifted the blame to the office handling the matter. A bald assertion of pressure of work was no ground to condone so long a delay.
The appeal papers were finalised and sent to the advocate on 24 September 2025, yet the appeal was filed only on 15 December 2025, with no reason given for that gap either. The Court called the department's conduct utterly lethargic, tardy and indolent.
The result
The application to condone delay was dismissed, and with it the appeal, as time-barred. There were no costs.
Who argued it
Appearances as recorded in the judgment of the Court.
Frequently asked
Can a government department's workload justify a late appeal?
No. The Court held a heavy caseload is not sufficient cause.
Does the Covid limitation extension cover such delays?
Only for its period. Here more than three years of delay remained.
Seeking condonation of a long delay
- Explain the delay day by day, with documents, not in general terms.
- Do not rely on workload alone; courts treat it as an excuse.
- Account for every gap, including after papers are ready.
- File as soon as possible once the cause of delay ends.
Source. High Court at Calcutta, ITA No. 51 of 2026, decided 11 September 2026 by Justice HON'BLE JUSTICE RAJARSHI BHARADWAJ, Justice HON'BLE JUSTICE SUDIP DEB. This explainer is written from the judgment text as reported.
Claw tracks High Court at Calcutta and 24 other High Courts, reads every order handed back, and surfaces the directions that carry a deadline. clawlaw.in