Pradeep Kumar Khandelwal Vs ITO (Chhattisgarh High Court)
The appellant/assessee filed an appeal under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act against the order of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT), which had dismissed the assessee’s appeal as barred by limitation due to a delay of 309 days in filing the appeal. The appeal was admitted by the High Court on 10.12.2024 on the substantial question of law of whether the ITAT was justified in holding that no sufficient cause had been shown for the 309-day delay by recording a finding alleged to be perverse to the record.
The assessee had earlier challenged the Assessing Officer’s order dated 21.12.2018 before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) [CIT(A)]. The CIT(A) dismissed the appeal by order dated 09.02.2023. The assessee thereafter preferred an appeal before the ITAT, which dismissed it by order dated 28.05.2024 solely on the ground of limitation.
Before the High Court, the assessee submitted that the ITAT had relied upon the decision of the Chhattisgarh High Court in Vidya Shenker Jaiswal v. The Income-Tax Officer, Ward-2, Ambikapur, which had subsequently been set aside by the Supreme Court by order dated 31.01.2025. The assessee also relied upon the High Court’s decision in Navodit Samaj Sevi Sanstha Vs. ITO. The Revenue supported the ITAT’s order and sought dismissal of the appeal.
The High Court noted that the assessee had explained the delay by stating that the email ID on record belonged to the assessee’s erstwhile representative rather than the assessee, resulting in non-communication of the order. According to the assessee, the appeal was filed after the order was actually communicated.
The Court observed that the Supreme Court, while setting aside the earlier High Court decision in Vidya Shenker Jaiswal, had held that the High Court ought to have adopted a justice-oriented and liberal approach in condoning delay. The High Court further noted that the Revenue had not filed any counter-affidavit disputing the explanation furnished by the assessee. Consequently, the reason assigned for the delay remained uncontroverted.
Considering the explanation offered by the assessee, the Supreme Court’s approach in Vidya Shenker Jaiswal, and the absence of any rebuttal from the Revenue, the High Court held that the delay of 309 days deserved to be condoned. It answered the substantial question of law accordingly.
The High Court condoned the delay, remitted the matter to the ITAT for deciding the appeal on merits in accordance with law at the earliest, allowed the appeal to the extent indicated, and directed the parties to bear their own costs.
Cases Discussed
- Vidya Shenker Jaiswal v. The Income-Tax Officer, Ward-2, Ambikapur (Chhattisgarh High Court), Tax Case No.86 of 2024, decided on 12.4.2024.
- Navodit Samaj Sevi Sanstha Vs. ITO (Chhattisgarh High Court), Tax Case Noo.225/2024, decided on 9.12.2024.
FULL TEXT OF THE JUDGMENT/ORDER OF CHHATTISGARH HIGH COURT
1. The present appeal preferred by the appellant/ assessee under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1956 was admitted for hearing on 10.12.2024 by formulating the following substantial question of law:-
“Whether the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal is justified in holding that no sufficient cause has been shown for delay of 309 days in filing the appeal, by recording a finding which is perverse to the record”
2. The appellant/assessee preferred an appeal before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) [for short, CIT(A)] against the Order dated 21.12.2018 of the Assessing Officer. The CIT(A) dismissed the appeal of the assessee by its Order dated 9.2.2023 which was again challenged by the assessee in appeal before the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (for short, ITAT) and the ITAT dismissed the appeal by its Order dated 28.5.2024 on the ground of the appeal being barred by limitation on account of 309 days’ delay. It is this order of the ITAT against which the present appeal has been preferred by the appellant/assessee.
3. Siddharth Dubey, learned Counsel appearing for the appellant/assessee, submits that learned ITAT while passing the impugned Order has relied upon the decision of this Court rendered in the matter of Vidya Shenker Jaiswal v. The Income-Tax Officer, Ward-2, Ambikapur1 which has already been set-aside by the Supreme Court by Order dated 31.1.20252 and therefore the impugned Order is liable to be set-aside and the delay be condoned. In this regard, he also relied upon the judgment of this Court delivered in the matter of Navodit Samaj Sevi Sanstha Vs. ITO3.
4. Ajay Kumrani, learned Counsel appearing for the Respondent-Department, however supports the impugned Order and prays for dismissal of the appeal.
5. We have heard learned Counsels for parties, considered their rival submissions and also perused the record of the case with utmost care and circumspection.
6. Admittedly, there is a delay of 309 days in filing the appeal before the ITAT and for which the appellant/assessee has assigned the reason that the email ID which was given was not the email ID of the assessee, but it was of the erstwhile representative of the assessee and therefore the order could not be communicated and once the order has been communicated, the appeal was preferred.
7. The Supreme Court in the matter of Vidya Shenker Jaiswal (supra) while setting aside the order of this Court rejecting the appeal on the ground of delay, has held that the High Court ought to have adopted justice oriented and liberal approach by condoning the delay.
8. In view of above and also for the reason shown by the appellant/assessee coupled with the fact the revenue did not file any counter-affidavit controverting the reason assigned by the assessee and as such the reason assigned by the assessee for delay in filing the appeal remained uncontroverted, the delay of 309 days occurred in filing the appeal deserves to be and is hereby condoned and the substantial question of law is answered accordingly.
9. The matter is remitted to the ITAT for deciding the appeal on merits, in accordance with law, at the earliest.
10. The appeal stands allowed to the extent indicated herein-above, leaving the parties to bear their own costs.
Notes:
1 Tax Case No.86 of 2024, decided on 12.4.2024.
2 Special Leave Petition (Civil) Nos.26310-26311/2024
3 Tax Case Noo.225/2024, decided on 9.12.2024.
