Vidya Shankar Jaiswal Vs ITO (Supreme Court of India)
Summary: The Supreme Court allowed the appeals arising from the dismissal of the appellant’s challenge to an order of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Raipur Bench, concerning a 166-day delay in filing ITA No.351/RPR/2023. The Supreme Court held that both the Tribunal and the High Court ought to have adopted a justice-oriented and liberal approach while considering condonation of the delay. It therefore set aside both impugned orders, condoned the 166-day delay and directed the Tribunal to decide the appeal in accordance with law. The Supreme Court did not decide the underlying tax dispute on merits.
Read HC Judgment in this case: Chhattisgarh High Court Dismisses Income Tax Appeal Over 166-Day Delay
The underlying proceedings concerned Assessment Year 2014-15. The Assessing Officer, by order dated 16.12.2018 under Sections 144/147 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, determined the appellant’s income at Rs. 34,67,700/-, treating cash deposits of the same amount in his savings bank account as unexplained money under Section 69A of the Income-tax Act. The appellant had subsequently filed a return declaring total income of Rs. 9,99,250/-.
The CIT(A) dismissed the first appeal by order dated 29.03.2023. The appellant thereafter filed the appeal before the ITAT on 10.11.2023 along with an application and affidavit seeking condonation of the 166-day delay. The ITAT, by order dated 13.02.2024 in ITA No.351/RPR/2023, declined to condone the delay.
Before the Chhattisgarh High Court, the appellant contended, inter alia, that the CIT(A)’s order had merely been uploaded on the e-filing portal without the required real-time alert and that he became aware of it only on 02.11.2023 while checking the portal. Reliance was placed on provisions concerning electronic service and on judicial authorities concerning a liberal approach to condonation of delay, including Collector, Land Acquisition v. Mst. Katiji & Others.
The High Court, however, considered the appellant’s conduct before the AO, CIT(A) and ITAT and concluded that the explanation for the delay did not establish sufficient cause. It noted that the appellant had not participated in the assessment or first appellate proceedings despite opportunities and upheld the ITAT’s refusal to condone the 166-day delay. The appeal under Section 260A was consequently dismissed.
The Supreme Court took a different view specifically on the question of condonation of the 166-day delay. It held that the Tribunal and High Court ought to have adopted a justice-oriented and liberal approach. The Court accordingly set aside both impugned orders, condoned the delay in preferring ITA No.351/RPR/2023 and directed the Tribunal to decide the appeal in accordance with law.
The Supreme Court’s order does not adjudicate whether the cash deposits of Rs. 34,67,700/- were taxable under Section 69A, nor does it determine the validity of the assessment under Sections 144/147. Those issues therefore remained for consideration by the Tribunal. The Supreme Court’s intervention was confined to the delay and restoration of the appeal for adjudication in accordance with law.
FULL TEXT OF THE ORDER OF SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
1. Leave granted.
2. Heard learned counsel appearing for the parties.
3. An appeal was preferred by the appellant before the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Raipur Bench wherein there was a delay of 166 days. The Tribunal declined to condone the delay. An appeal was preferred against the said order by the appellant before the High Court. Even the appeal has been dismissed.
4. In our view, both the Tribunal and the High Court ought to have adopted justice oriented and liberal approach by condoning the delay of 166 days.
5. Therefore, we set aside both the impugned orders by condoning the delay in preferring the appeal bearing ITA No.351/RPR/2023.
6. We direct that the Director of the Tribunal to decide the appeal in accordance with law.
7. The appeals are disposed of in accordance with law.
8. Pending application(s), if any, shall stand disposed of.
Leave granted.
The appeals are disposed of in terms of the signed order.
Pending application(s), if any, shall stand disposed of.
