Case Law Details
PCIT Vs Anil Bhalla (Delhi High Court)
In the case PCIT Vs Anil Bhalla, the Delhi High Court addressed the Revenue’s application for condonation of an 880-day delay in re-filing an income tax appeal. The Revenue attributed the delay to a backlog of appeals that accumulated due to the COVID-19 pandemic between March 2020 and March 2022. However, the court found these grounds insufficient to justify such a significant delay, leading to the dismissal of the application. The ruling highlights the court’s stance on maintaining timelines in legal proceedings and the necessity for appellants to adhere to deadlines despite external circumstances.
Since the Revenue’s request for condonation was rejected, the High Court determined that it need not assess the appeal’s merits. Nonetheless, a brief examination of the underlying case revealed that the Revenue sought to contest a 2020 order from the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) regarding an assessment year from 2007-08. The ITAT had previously upheld a decision by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) that overturned a significant addition made by the Assessing Officer based on a lack of incriminating evidence found during a search. The court noted that the issue was already covered by existing precedent, specifically referencing a prior judgment that limited the scope of reassessments without new evidence.
Ultimately, the court dismissed the appeal, citing both the inordinate delay in re-filing and the absence of any substantial legal question to warrant further consideration. This decision reinforces the importance of procedural compliance in tax litigation, emphasizing that delays may result in the forfeiture of rights to appeal, regardless of the merits of the case itself.
FULL TEXT OF THE JUDGMENT/ORDER OF DELHI HIGH COURT
1. The Revenue has filed this application seeking condonation of delay of 860 days in re-filing the present appeal.
2. A bare perusal of the application indicates that the only ground for delay in re-filing is that there were a large number of appeals, which were filed between the period March, 2020 to March, 2022. And, the said appeals could not have been pursued on account of outbreak of the COVID-19 pandemic.
3. It is clear that there is an inordinate delay of 880 days in re-filing the appeal. We do not find that there are sufficient grounds to justify such an inordinate delay.
4. The application is, accordingly, dismissed.
ITA 525/2024
5. Since the Revenue’s application for condonation of delay in re-filing the appeal has been rejected, it is not necessary to consider the Revenue’s appeal on merits. Notwithstanding the same, we have briefly examined the Revenue’s appeal on merits as well.
6. The Revenue seeks to appeal the order dated 15.10.2020 passed by the learned Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (hereafter the learned ITAT) in ITA No. 2113/Del/2017 in respect of assessment year (AY) 2007-08.
7. The assessee had filed its return of income for the AY 2007-08 on 13.09.2007.
8. Mr. Aggarwal, learned senior counsel appearing for the assessee submits that the said return was picked up for scrutiny and an assessment order dated 31.08.2009 was passed under Section 143(3) of the Income Tax Act (hereafter the Act).
9. A search was conducted on the premises of the assessee on 16.01.2013. Pursuant to the notice received under Section 153A of the Act, the assessee had filed its return of income on 07.10.2014. Pursuant to the said return, the Assessing Officer (hereafter the AO) framed an assessment order making an addition of ₹8,46,11,456/- under Section 68 of the Act treating certain balances, as available in the books of accounts, as unexplained.
10. The assessee had preferred an appeal before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) [hereafter learned CIT(A)] assailing the said addition. The said appeal was allowed and the addition made by the AO was deleted on the ground that since no incriminating material was found during the search conducted, the re-assessment could not be sustained. The learned CIT(A) had relied on the earlier decision of Court in Commissioner of Income Tax v. Kabul Chawla: (2016) 380 ITR 573. Aggrieved by the said decision, the Revenue had preferred an appeal before the learned ITAT, however, the learned ITAT had found no fault with the decision of learned CIT(A).
11. Concededly, the said issue is covered by the earlier decision of this Court in Commissioner of Income Tax v. Kabul Chawla (supra) which has been recently cited with approval by the Supreme Court in Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, Central-3 v. Abhisar Buildwell Pvt. Ltd.: (2024) 2 SCC OnLine 433.
12. Plainly, no substantial question of law arises in the present appeal.
13. In view of the above, the present appeal is dismissed on the ground of limitation as well as on merits.
Author Bio
