Thirty-One Days Late, And The Appeal Lives
The Revenue filed its income tax appeal 31 days out of time and the assessee said the Court had no power left to hear it. The Court disagreed, and explained why.
The Court condoned the delay of 31 days and directed the appeal be registered and listed for admission. Section 260A(2A) neither says the High Court becomes functus officio after 120 days nor uses the restrictive expressions — ‘but not thereafter’, ‘not exceeding’ — that would exclude the Limitation Act. A right of appeal cannot ordinarily be defeated on technical grounds.
- Look for the restrictive words. Their absence is what keeps the Limitation Act in play.
- Section 260A(2A) has no such words, and says nothing about the Court losing power.
- Procedure serves the right, not the reverse — the Court warned against grain being reduced to husk by procedural excess.
- Thirty-one days is short and nominal, which is how the Court described it.
- Court
- High Court of Himachal Pradesh at Shimla
- Citation
- 2026:HHC:36928
- Case
- OMP(M) No. 501 of 2025
- Decided
- 1 September 2026
- Outcome
- Application allowed; delay condoned and the appeal to be registered
What was sought
The Principal Commissioner of Income Tax sought condonation of 31 days' delay in filing an appeal, yet to be registered, against orders of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Chandigarh Bench, of 25 February 2025.
Why the objection failed
A right of appeal cannot ordinarily be defeated on technical grounds where the statute does not expressly provide for a strict exclusion of the Limitation Act. The Court warned against reducing the grain to husk through procedural excess.
Section 260A(2A) of the Income-tax Act neither expressly provides that the High Court shall become functus officio after the expiry of 120 days, nor does it use the restrictive expressions — ‘but not thereafter’, ‘not exceeding’ — which the Supreme Court's broad principles treat as the marker of an excluded Limitation Act.
The objections were accordingly turned down, and a delay of a short and nominal 31 days merited condonation on the facts.
The directions
The application was allowed and the delay of 31 days condoned.
As a sequel, the accompanying appeal is to be registered and listed for admission. The parties bear their own costs.
Who argued it
Appearances as recorded in the judgment of the Court.
Frequently asked
Can a High Court condone delay beyond 120 days under Section 260A?
Yes. The Court held Section 260A(2A) does not make it functus officio and contains no restrictive expressions excluding the Limitation Act.
What are restrictive expressions?
Words like 'but not thereafter' or 'not exceeding', which signal that the Limitation Act is excluded. Section 260A(2A) has none.
Meeting an objection that an appeal is out of time
- Read the limitation provision for restrictive words; without them the Limitation Act generally applies.
- Check whether the statute says anything about the court losing jurisdiction — most do not.
- Explain the delay day by day; the Court described 31 days as short and nominal on these facts.
- Frame it as the right of appeal against procedural excess, which is the language the Court used.
Source. High Court of Himachal Pradesh at Shimla, 2026:HHC:36928, OMP(M) No. 501 of 2025, decided 1 September 2026 by . This explainer is written from the judgment text as reported.
Claw tracks High Court of Himachal Pradesh at Shimla and 24 other High Courts, reads every order handed back, and surfaces the directions that carry a deadline. clawlaw.in