ANIL KUMAR SINHA V. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

WPC/2809/2022

AI Insights

The case involves Anil Kumar Sinha, the petitioner, who challenged the dismissal of his revision application under Section 264 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, by the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, Ranchi. The dismissal was primarily on the grounds of limitation, despite the Supreme Court's ruling in Suo Moto Case No. 3 of 2020, which excluded the period from March 15, 2020, to February 28, 2022, from limitation calculations due to the COVID-19 pandemic. The petitioner argued that he was unable to respond to the initial notice due to the pandemic and personal losses, and thus his application should be considered within the extended limitation period.

• Counselvise Citation: [2022] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 752347 (HC-JHARKHAND)
• Appeal Type: Others
• Pronouncement Date: 19-10-2022
• Assessment Year: misc
• Other Referred Cases: IN RE: COGNIZANCE FOR EXTENTION OF LIMITATION passed in Suo Moto Case No.3 of 2020
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act, 1961
• Result in Favour of: Others
• Court: HIGH COURT
• Department Lawyers: RATNESH SAHAY
• Assessee Lawyers: PARTH JALAN
• Keywords: Covid-19; Income Tax; Limitation; Revision application; Suo Moto Case No.3 of 2020
• Section: 144; 264; 142

Judgement Text

"1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI W.P. (T) No. 2809 of 2022 Anil Kumar Sinha …… Petitioner Versus 1. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, Ranchi officiating from his office at Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Revenue Building, Main Road, P.O.-Hindpiri, P.S.-GPO, District-Ranchi. 2. Income Tax Officer, Ward 1 (1), Ranchi officiating from his office at Central Revenue Building, Main Road, P.O.-Hindpiri, P.S.-GPO, Dist- Ranchi. 3. Income Tax Officer, Ward 1 (5), Ranchi officiating from his office at Central Revenue Building, Main Road, P.O.-Hindpiri, P.S.-GPO, Dist- Ranchi. ………. Respondents …….. CORAM : Hon’ble Mr. Justice Aparesh Kumar Singh Hon’ble Mr. Justice Deepak Roshan For the Petitioner : Mr. Parth Jalan, Adv. For the Respondents : Mr. Ratnesh Nandan Sahay, Sr. S.C. xxs 07/19.10.2022: Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2. The instant writ application has been preferred for following reliefs:- (a) For the issuance of an appropriate writ(s)/order(s)/direction(s) to set aside the order bearing number ITBA/REV/F/REV7/2021- 22/1041959101(1) dated 29th March 2022, (Annexure-5) wherein the respondent No.1 has been pleased to dismiss the revision application filed by the petitioner on the ground of limitation without considering the decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of IN RE: COGNIZANCE FOR EXTENTION OF LIMITATION passed in Suo Moto Case No.3 of 2020 wherein the Hon’ble Apex Court has been pleased to state that the entire period between the 15th of March 2020 to the 28th of February 2022 shall be excluded for the purpose of computing limitation. (b) For the issuance of an appropriate writ(s)/order(s)/direction(s) upon the Respondent(s) especially Respondent No.1 to reconsider the revision application filed by the respondent after condoning the delay, if 2 any, and pass a reasoned order under Section 264 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 considering the submission and the grounds raised by the petitioner. 3. The brief facts of the case is that the petitioner is a regular income tax Assessee and has been filing his returns regularly. The income tax return for the assessment year 2017-18 wasfiled by the petitioner on 26th of March 2018. That Respondent No. 2 issued notices under Section 142 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 tothe petitioner on 11th March 2019 wherein certain details such as the copy of the income tax return, copy of form 26AS, note on the business activity of the petitioner, ledger of purchases transaction,statement of bank accounts etc. was sought. The case of the petitioner is that the said notice was never received by him. The Petitioner only came to know about the same at a later stage after the assessment order dated 20th of December 2019 had been passed under Section 144 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. However, due to the COVID-19 pandemic the petitioner could not take any appropriate action against the assessment order dated 20th of December 2019. The entire country went into lockdown on 15th of March 2020 and when some normalcy returned the Petitioner preferred an application under Section 264 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 against the Assessment order dated 20th of December 2019.The petitioner filed the application alongwith the prescribed fee of Rs.500 (INR FiveHundred Only) on 9th February 2022. 4. Mr. Parth Jalan, learned counsel for thepetitioner submits that the assesse never received any notice from the revenue, therefore, he could not give any proper representation before the Assessing Officer and therefore, he explained his entire contention in the application filed 3 under Section 264 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The respondent No.1 issued a notice to the petitioner to explain the reasons behind the application not filed within the prescribed time. Learned counsel further submits that vide letter dated 8th March, 2022 the Assessee replied that the application for revision under Section 264 of the I.T. Act could not be filed owing to the wide spread pandemic situation and death of two family members of the petitioner. Learned counsel lastly submits that in view of the Suo Moto Case No. 03 of 2020, the Hon’ble Apex Court has been pleased to state that the entire period between 15thof March 2020 to 28thof February 2022, shall be excluded for the purpose of computing limitation. However, ignoring the said judgment passed by the Hon’ble Apex Court in Suo Moto Case, the respondent No.1 dismissed the application of the petitioner on the ground of delay though he also touched merits but in essence application of the petitioner has been dismissed on limitation only which is against the spirit of the Apex Court Judgment. 5. Mr. Ratnesh Nandan Sahay, learned sr. standing counsel for the revenue submits that there is no infirmity in the order passed by the Commissioner of Income Tax, inasmuch as, the application has not only been dismissed on limitation but also on merit. 6. Having heard leaned counsel for the parties and after going through the documents annexed with the respective affidavits and the averments made therein it appears that a petition for revision under Section 264 of I.T.Act, 1961 was filed by the petitioner for the assessment year 2017-18 on 10.02.2022. The petitioner further vide its letter dated 8th March 2022 in reply to the respondent’s letter dated 4 24.02.2022 elucidate that the Assesse could not prefer appeal due to spread of pandemic (Covid-19) and he was also directly affected from Corona, inasmuch as, his few family members also died. In the said application the petitioner also informed about the Suo Moto writ petition Case No. 03 of 2020 by which the Hon’ble Apex Court hasextended the period of limitation in any proceedings. However, the Commissioner of Income Tax rejected the application filed by the petitioner under Section 264 of the Act. 7. For better appreciation, relevant portion of the order passed by the respondent No.1 is extracted herein below:- “..... The assessee filed application u/s.264 on 10.02.2022 i.e. beyond the time limit prescribed in the Act. The delay is nearly one year and two months. When this was pointed out to the applicant, the applicant claimed that because of covid pandemic he could not filed the petition in time and mentioned Hon'ble Supreme Court's decision (citation not given) without giving any details regarding extension of time limit. The application has been filed beyond the due date. The order was passed on 20.12.2019 and the pandemic started from the end of March 2020. The contention of the assessee has been considered and rejected both on merits as well as on technical issue of limitation. In view of the above the revision petition filed by the applicant u/s 264 is hereby dismissed.” 8. After going through the aforesaid portion of the impugned order, it appears that the respondent no.1 has dismissed the case of the petitioner on the ground of limitationthough he had also touched the merit of the case. Now it is well known to every organizationthat due to the pandemic the Hon’ble Apex Court in the Suo Moto writ petition no. 5 03 of 2020 and Misc. Application No. 21 of 2022 has extended the period of limitation in all proceedings. 9. Vide order dated 23 March, 2020 in W.P.(C) No. 03 of 2020 at para 1 and 2the Hon’ble Apex Court has directed as under: “1. This Court has taken suo motu cognizance of the situation arising out of the challenge faced by the country on account of Covid-19 virus and resultant difficulties that may be faced by litigants across the country in filing their petitions/applications/suits/appeals/ all other proceedings within the period of limitation prescribed under the general law of limitation or under special laws (both Central and/or State). 2. To obviate such difficulties and to ensure that lawyers/litigants do not have to come physically to file such proceedings in respective court/tribunals across the country including this Court, it is hereby ordered that a period of limitation in all such proceedings, irrespective of the limitation prescribed under the general law or special laws whether condonable or not shall stand extended w.e.f. 15.03.2020 till further order(s) to be passed by this Court in present proceedings.” The Hon’ble Apex Court has further extended limitation from time to time and finally vide order dated January 10, 2022 in Misc. Application No. 21 of 2022 at para 5.1 directed as under: 5.1. The order dated 23.03.2020 is restored and in continuation of the subsequent orders dated 8.3.2021, 27.4.2021 and 23.9.2021, it is directed that the period from 15.3.2020 till 28.2.2022 shall stand excluded for the purposes of limitation as may be prescribed under any general or special laws in respect of all judicial or quasi- judicial proceedings.” 10. Since the proceeding under 263 comes under the definition of proceeding, as such the different orders passed in Suo Moto Case W.P. (C) No. 03 of 2020 will also govern the case of the petitioner; as such the ground of limitation in rejecting the application of the petitioner has no 6 legs to stand in the eyes of law as the same is entirely against the spirit of the order passed in Suo-moto case. As such interest of justice would be sufficed by quashing the impugned order and remitting the case for fresh consideration. 11. Consequently, the instant writ application stands allowed and disposed of. The matter is remitted back to the respondent No.1 to pass a fresh order after following principles of natural justice. (Aparesh Kumar Singh, J.) (Deepak Roshan, J.) Amardeep/ "