ASHUTOSH CHAUHAN ,SHIMLA V. INCOME TAX OFFICER , SHIMLA

ITA 883/CHANDI/2024

AI Insights

Shri Ashutosh Chauhan appealed against the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) which sustained an addition of Rs.18,64,639 to his declared agricultural income for the assessment year 2016-17. The Tribunal noted that the appeal was initially time-barred due to the assessee's lack of access to internet facilities in a remote village. The Tribunal, referencing various Supreme Court decisions, liberalized the interpretation of 'sufficient cause' for delay in filing appeals and condoned the delay. The Tribunal then directed the AO to verify the assessee's agricultural landholdings and the corresponding income, while not disturbing the deletions already made by the CIT(A).

• Counselvise Citation: [2025] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 35587 (ITAT-CHANDIGARH)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 06-02-2025
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: Not Allotted
• Assessment Year: 2016-2017
• Other Referred Cases: Collector Land Acquisition Vs. Mst. Katiji & Others, N. Balakrishnan Vs. M. Krishnamurthy
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act, Indian Limitation Act, 1963
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: VIVEK VARDHAN
• Keywords: Condonation of delay
• Section: 143(3); 113

Judgement Text

"आयकर अपील य अ\u000bधकरण,च\u0010डीगढ़ \u0014यायपीठ, च\u0010डीगढ़ IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL CHANDIGRH BENCH, ‘SMC’ CHANDIGARH BEFORE SHRI RAJPAL YADAV, VICE PRESIDENT आयकर अपील सं./ ITA No. 883/CHD/2024 \rनधा\u0011रण वष\u0011 / Assessment Year: 2016-17 Shri Ashutosh Chauhan, Panta Niwas, Nav Bahar, Near Moto World, Shimla. Vs The ITO, Shimla. \u0016थायी लेखा सं./PAN NO: AHZPC6111E अपीलाथ\u001a/Appellant \u001b\u001cयथ\u001a/Respondent Assessee by : None Revenue by : Shri Vivek Vardhan, Addl. CIT Date of Hearing : 27.01.2025 Date of Pronouncement : 06.02.2025 PHYSICAL HEARING O R D E R The assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal against the order of Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) [in short ‘the CIT (A)’] dated 27.02.2024 passed for assessment year 2016-17. 2. It emerges out that appeal filed by the assessee is time barred because impugned order was passed on 27.02.2024 and the appeal has been presented before the Tribunal on 16.08.2024. The assessee has filed an application for ITA No.883/CHD/2024 A.Y.2016-17 2 condonation of delay wherein he has pleaded that he is residing in a remote village in Himachal Pradesh and does not have the facility of internet. He could not look after his e-mail or any other things. When he has approached his counsel for finalization of his return for assessment year 2024-25, only then it came to his notice that ld. CIT(A) has decided the appeal for assessment year 2016-17. He obtained the copy of the impugned order and thereafter filed the appeal. In this way, it has become time barred by 113 days. 3. In response to the notice of hearing, no one has come present before the Tribunal, therefore, I take proceedings ex- parte against the assessee. 4. With the assistance of ld. DR, I have gone through the record carefully. Sub-section 5 of Section 253 contemplates that the Tribunal may admit an appeal or permit filing of memorandum of cross- objections after expiry of relevant period, if it is satisfied that there was a sufficient cause for not presenting it within that period. This expression sufficient cause employed in the section has also been used ITA No.883/CHD/2024 A.Y.2016-17 3 identically in sub-section 3 of section 249 of Income Tax Act, which provides powers to the ld. Commissioner to condone the delay in filing the appeal before the Commissioner. Similarly, it has been used in section 5 of Indian Limitation Act, 1963. Whenever interpretation and construction of this expression has fallen for consideration before Hon’ble High Court as well as before the Hon’ble Supreme Court, then, Hon’ble Court were unanimous in their conclusion that this expression is to be used liberally. We may make reference to the following observations of the Hon’ble Supreme court from the decision in the case of Collector Land Acquisition Vs. Mst. Katiji& Others, 1987 AIR 1353: 1. Ordinarily a litigant does not stand to benefit by lodging an appeal late. 2. Refusing to condone delay can result in a meritorious matter being thrown out at the very threshold and cause of justice being defeated. As against this when delay is condoned the highest that can happen is that a cause would be decided on merits after hearing the parties. 3. \"Every day’s delay must be explained\" does not mean that a pedantic approach should be made. Why not every hour's delay, every second's delay? The doctrine ITA No.883/CHD/2024 A.Y.2016-17 4 must be applied in a rational common sense pragmatic manner. 4. When substantial justice and technical considerations are pitted against each other, cause of substantial justice deserves to be preferred for the other side cannot claim to have vested right in injustice being done because of a non-deliberate delay. 5. There is no presumption that delay is occasioned deliberately, or on account of culpable negligence, or on account of mala fides. A litigant does not stand to benefit by resorting to delay. In fact, he runs a serious risk. 6. It must be grasped that judiciary is respected not on account of its power to legalize injustice on technical grounds but because it is capable of removing injustice and is expected to do so. 5. Similarly, we would like to make reference to authoritative pronouncement of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of N. Balakrishnan Vs. M. Krishnamurthy (supra). It reads as under: “Rule of limitation are not meant to destroy the right of parties. They are meant to see that parties do not resort to dilatory tactics, but seek their remedy promptly. The object of providing a legal remedy is to repair the damage caused by reason of legal injury. Law of limitation fixes a life-span for such legal remedy for the redress of the legal injury so suffered. Time is precious and the wasted time would never revisit. During efflux of time newer causes would sprout up necessitating newer ITA No.883/CHD/2024 A.Y.2016-17 5 persons to seek legal remedy by approaching the courts. So a life span must be fixed for each remedy. Unending period for launching the remedy may lead to unending uncertainty and consequential anarchy. Law of limitation is thus founded on public policy. It is enshrined in the maxim Interest reipublicae up sit finislitium (it is for the general welfare that a period be putt to litigation). Rules of limitation are not meant to destroy the right of the parties. They are meant to see that parties do not resort to dilatory tactics but seek their remedy promptly. The idea is that every legal remedy must be kept alive for a legislatively fixed period of time. A court knows that refusal to condone delay would result foreclosing a suitor from putting forth his cause. There is no presumption that delay in approaching the court is always deliberate. This Court has held that the words \"sufficient cause\" under Section 5 of the Limitation Act should receive a liberal construction so as to advance substantial justice vide Shakuntala Devi lain Vs. Kuntal Kumari [AIR 1969 SC 575] and State of West Bengal Vs. The Administrator, Howrah Municipality [AIR 1972 SC 749]. It must be remembered that in every case of delay there can be some lapse on the part of the litigant concerned. That alone is not enough to turn down his plea and to shut the door against him. If the explanation does not smack of mala fides or it is not put forth as part of a dilatory strategy the court must show utmost consideration to the suitor. But when there is reasonable ground to think that the delay was occasioned by the party deliberately to gain time then the court should lean against acceptance of the explanation. While condoning delay the Could should not forget the opposite party altogether. It must be borne in mind that he is a looser and he too would have incurred quiet a large litigation expenses. It would be a salutary guideline that when courts condone the delay due to laches on the part of the applicant the court shall compensate the opposite party for his loss”. 6. In the light of above, if I examine the facts of present case, then it would reveal that there was no deliberate ITA No.883/CHD/2024 A.Y.2016-17 6 attempt at the end of the assessee to make his appeal time barred because everything has become faceless and only those persons who have internet facility can update themselves. The assessee has not filed any other income except agriculture income. He might not be having sufficient internet facility in his village, therefore, could not keep a tab on the proceedings of ld. CIT(A) as well as of the AO. I, therefore, condone the delay and proceed to decide the appeal on merit. 7. The grievance of the assessee is that ld. CIT(A) has erred in sustaining the addition of Rs.18,64,639/-. The brief facts of the case are that assessee has filed his return of income wherein he has declared Rs.42,41,876/- as agriculture income. This claim of the assessee was rejected by the AO in an ex-parte assessment order. 8. Dissatisfied with the addition of the AO, assessee carried the matter in appeal before CIT(A). He pointed out that in assessment year 2017-18, he declared agriculture income of Rs.33,05,352/- and in assessment year 2018-19 Rs.33,31,679/-. Both these returns have been accepted in ITA No.883/CHD/2024 A.Y.2016-17 7 scrutiny assessment under Section 143(3) of the Act. He further contended that he has an agricultural land of more than 50 bighas wherein apple orchard has been planted. The ld. CIT(A) did not accept the contentions of the assessee. He only deleted following amounts : 1. Rs.8,16,066/- received from Mr.Ashutosh Chauhan 2. Rs.40,220/- and Rs.76,907/- received from M/s. Key Key Traders 3. Rs.14,17,044/- Received from Mr.Ashwini Mukund Chauhan 9. These additions have been deleted for the reason that assessee has submitted requisite evidence exhibiting sale of agriculture products. 10. A perusal of the record would indicate that neither before AO nor before CIT(A), assessee has filed details of agriculture landholding nor he has filed any evidence from the Revenue record that apple orchard has been planted. The assessee has only made a bald statement in his written submission that he owns 50 bighas of agriculture land where apple orchard is standing. But to support that submission, he has not filed copy of Jamabandi or of Girdawari issued by the State Revenue Authorities. Therefore, for a limited purpose, I am setting aside this ITA No.883/CHD/2024 A.Y.2016-17 8 issue to the file of AO to examine whether the balance addition of Rs.18,64,639/- can be deleted or not. The AO is directed to compare past agriculture income declared by the assessee in the light of agriculture landholding owned by him. It is further observed that if at 50 bighas of agriculture land, apple orchard has been planted and assessee provides details of number of trees, then the estimated agriculture income ought to have been worked out by the AO. The agriculture income cannot be worked out on the basis of sale bills, purchases of pesticides etc., it can always be determined on the basis of agriculture landholding, crops shown therein and what can be expected yield achieved from such a landholding. In view of the above, the limited issue is being sent to the AO that he will examine the sustainability of addition to the extent of Rs.18,64,639/-. The additions which have already been deleted by the CIT(A) will not be raked up again because this Tribunal cannot put the assessee in more disadvantageous position than dismissal of his appeal. The order of the ld. CIT(A) attained finality to the extent he has deleted the addition. Therefore, only ITA No.883/CHD/2024 A.Y.2016-17 9 balance amount which has been sustained by the CIT(A) is to be examined. 11. In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced on 06.02.2025. Sd/- (RAJPAL YADAV) VICE PRESIDENT “Poonam” आदेश क\u0002 \u0003ितिलिप अ\tेिषत/ Copy of the order forwarded to : 1. अपीलाथ\u000f/ The Appellant 2. \u0003\u0010यथ\u000f/ The Respondent 3. आयकर आयु\u0014/ CIT 4. िवभागीय \u0003ितिनिध, आयकर अपीलीय आिधकरण, च\u0018डीगढ़/ DR, ITAT, CHANDIGARH 5. गाड\u001c फाईल/ Guard File आदेशानुसार/ By order, सहायक पंजीकार/ Assistant Registrar "