Vidya Shankar Jaiswal Vs ITO (Supreme Court of India)
The matter arose from assessment proceedings for Assessment Year 2014-15 in which the appellant did not file his income tax return due to illness. Based on information available in the Actionable Information Monitoring System, the Assessing Officer reopened the assessment under Sections 147/144 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 and, by order dated 16.12.2018, determined the appellant’s income at ₹34,67,700 by treating cash deposits in his savings bank account as unexplained money under Section 69A. The appellant subsequently filed his return on 27.12.2018 declaring income of ₹9,99,250. His appeal before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) was dismissed on 29.03.2023 after the authority observed that, despite several opportunities, he had failed to explain the nature and source of the cash deposits. The appellant then filed an appeal before the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal with a delay of 166 days, along with an application for condonation. He contended that notices under Section 250 and the CIT(A)’s order had merely been uploaded on the ITBA e-filing portal without real-time alerts, that he became aware of the order only on 02.11.2023, and relied upon Rule 46 of the Income Tax Rules, 1962, Section 282 of the Act, Rule 127 of the Income Tax Rules, Section 13 of the Information Technology Act, 2000, and several judicial precedents to seek liberal condonation of delay. The Revenue submitted that the appellant had failed to participate before the Assessing Officer and the CIT(A), despite repeated opportunities, and had furnished no explanation regarding the cash deposits.
Read HC Judgment in this case: Andhra Pradesh HC: 166-Day Delay Not Condoned Due to Repeated Non-Participation
The Andhra Pradesh High Court observed that the appellant had neither participated before the Assessing Officer nor before the CIT(A), despite repeated notices, and had failed to provide any satisfactory explanation regarding the cash deposits or establish bona fide reasons for the 166-day delay. Referring to Section 69A and the Tribunal’s observations that condoning the delay would send a wrong message in view of the appellant’s conduct, the High Court held that the expression “sufficient cause” requires reasonable grounds and that the appellant had failed to establish good and sufficient cause. Accordingly, it upheld the Tribunal’s refusal to condone the delay and dismissed the appeal.
The appellant challenged the High Court’s judgment before the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court noted that the appeal before the Tribunal had been delayed by 166 days, that both the Tribunal and the High Court had declined to condone the delay, and held that both authorities ought to have adopted a justice-oriented and liberal approach by condoning the delay. Accordingly, the Supreme Court set aside the orders of the Tribunal and the High Court, condoned the delay in filing ITA No.351/RPR/2023, and directed the Tribunal to decide the appeal in accordance with law. As a result, the High Court judgment dismissing the appeal stood set aside and the matter was restored to the Tribunal for adjudication on merits.
FULL TEXT OF THE SUPREME COURT JUDGMENT/ORDER
