The Bombay High Court at Goa has condoned a 447-day delay by the Income Tax Department in filing an appeal against the acquittal of Gregory Lewis in a prosecution for tax evasion under Sections 276C(1) and 277 of the Income Tax Act, 1961.
The bench of Justice Shreeram V. Shirsat, while allowing the department’s criminal misc. application held that although the application for condonation of delay lacked specific details, the reasons cited constituted “sufficient cause” to justify the delay. The court directed that the appeal be registered and heard on merits.
The appeal challenged a 2019 judgment of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Panaji, which had acquitted Lewis of charges relating to wilful attempt to evade tax and making false statements in verification. The Income Tax Department sought to file the appeal after more than a year’s delay.
The department explained that the delay was caused by several factors — including confusion over jurisdiction following the implementation of the faceless assessment scheme in August 2020, internal restructuring of tax offices, and reduced staff attendance during the COVID-19 pandemic due to the 50% roster system.
Further, it was contended that the department’s Special Public Prosecutor had inadvertently delayed submission of his legal opinion, mistakenly believing that he had already forwarded it.
The Income Tax Department argued that the delay was neither deliberate nor mala fide, and that the department should not be penalised for the inadvertent error of its counsel. The department relied on earlier High Court orders in Income Tax Department v. Dattaraj Vassudev Salgaonkar, where delay in similar circumstances had been condoned, citing the Supreme Court’s ruling in Collector (LA) v. Katiji (1987) 2 SCC 107 emphasizing a liberal approach toward condonation when substantial justice is at stake.
The assessee vehemently opposed the plea, submitting that there was “inordinate delay” of 447 days without a satisfactory explanation. He argued that the department’s reasons were vague, and the respondent had already suffered 26 years of hardship since the tax proceedings originated from a 1998 return. Reliance was placed on State of Madhya Pradesh v. Bherulal (2020) 10 SCC 654, where the Supreme Court had criticized government departments for routinely seeking condonation on flimsy grounds.
The court observed that while the respondent’s reliance on Bherulal was justified in general, the present case merited leniency given the combination of bona fide error by counsel, administrative confusion due to reorganization of tax jurisdictions, and pandemic-related disruptions.
The court noted that the “application for condonation of delay, no doubt, should have been more specific,” but refusing condonation would “result in a meritorious matter being thrown out at the very threshold and thereby defeat the cause of justice.”
The court further remarked that once the department received instructions from the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax on September 9, 2020, it acted promptly — filing the appeal on September 17, 2020.
The court concluded “Considering the reasons set out in the application, that there was a bona fide mistake on the part of the Special Public Prosecutor, no proper clarification for ascertaining the jurisdiction of the office for filing appeal, and that it was during the COVID period when the strength of officials was not optimum, the delay can be condoned.”
Case Details
Case Title: The Income Tax Dept. Versus Gregory Lewis
Case No.: CRIMINAL MISC. APPLICATION NO.46 OF 2022
Date: 17/10/2025
Counsel For Petitioner: Amira Razaq, Advocate
Counsel For Respondent: Ajit Kantak, Advocate
Read More: Marketing Support Services Qualify as Export: CESTAT Allows Dell India’s Appeal
