ATAM PARKASH,PATIALA V. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-4, PATIALA, PATIALA

ITA 1105/CHANDI/2024

AI Insights

The case involves Atam Parkash, the appellant, who filed appeals against the orders of the Income Tax Officer (ITO), Ward 4, Patiala, for the assessment years 2010-11 and 2011-12. The appeals were initially dismissed by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) due to a significant delay attributed to the death of the appellant's advocate. The Tribunal considered the circumstances of the delay, including the death of the advocate and the COVID-19 pandemic, but ultimately found the explanations insufficient to justify the delay in filing the appeals. The Tribunal relied on precedents that emphasized the need for a liberal approach in condoning delays but found that the specific facts of this case did not meet the threshold of 'sufficient cause' as required by law.

• Counselvise Citation: [2025] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 785917 (ITAT-CHANDIGARH)
• Duration Of Justice: 11 month(s) 21 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 29-10-2025
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: A
• Assessment Year: 2010-2011
• Appeal Filed On: 07-11-2024
• Other Referred Cases: Esha Bhattacharya Civil Appeal No. 8182-8184 of 2013, Gurfateh Films and Sippy Grewal Productions TTA No. 92/Asr/2022, Punjab Agricultural University ITA No. 661/CHD/2022, 492/CHD/2022
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: MANAV BANSAL
• Assessee Lawyers: DEV AHUJA
• Keywords: Condonation of delay

Judgement Text

"आयकर अपीलȣय अͬधकरण, चÖडीगढ़ Ûयायपीठ, चÖडीगढ़ IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL CHANDIGARH BENCH, ‘A’, CHANDIGARH BEFORE SHRI LALIET KUMAR, JUDICIAL MEMBER & SHRI KRINWANT SAHAY, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER आयकर अपील सं./ ITA Nos. 1104 to 1107/CHD/2024 Assessment Years : 2010-11, 2010-11, 2011-12 & 2011-12 Atam Parkash, 248,Street No. 5, Tripuri Town, Patiala 147001 बनाम Vs. The ITO, Ward 4, Patiala èथायी लेखा सं./ PAN NO: AAUPP3504C अपीलाथȸ/Appellant Ĥ×यथȸ/Respondent ( PHYSICAL HEARING ) Ǔनधा[ǐरती कȧ ओर से/Assessee by : Sh. Dev Ahuja, Advocate राजèव कȧ ओर से/ Revenue by : Sh. Manav Bansal, CIT DR and Sh. Vivek Vardhan, Addl. CIT, Sr.DR सुनवाई कȧ तारȣख/Date of Hearing : 29.10.2025 उदघोषणा कȧ तारȣख/Date of Pronouncement : 29.10.2025 आदेश/Order Per Bench : Captioned appeals have been filed by the assessee against the order dated 12.09.2024 passed by the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi for the respective assessment years. 2. At the outset, the Ld. AR for the Assessee submitted that the Ld. CIT(A) has dismissed the appeals of the Printed from counselvise.com 1104 to 1106-Chd-2024 Atma Parkash, Patiala 2 Assessee on account callous approach of Assessee resulting in lapse of more than five years five months of delay. The ld. AR has submitted that earlier the Counsel handing the matter has died on 17.9.2020 and thereafter the Assessee was not aware about the outcome fate of the appeals and the appeals were filed against the order of the Assessing Officer dated 19.12.2017 on 12.9.2024. It was submitted that delay in filing the appeals before the Ld. CIT(A) was on account of death of the ld. C.A. which happened on 17.9.2020. 3. The Ld. AR had further submitted that in the identical facts, the Tribunal for the A.Y. 2011-12 had condoned the delay and earlier remanded the matter to the file of the Ld. Assessing Officer for re-adjudication the issues. 4. Per contra, the ld. DR relied on the orders passed by the Ld. CIT(A) and submitted that there was no ground of condonation of delay. Printed from counselvise.com 1104 to 1106-Chd-2024 Atma Parkash, Patiala 3 5. We have considered the rival contentions of the parties and perused the material available on record. In the present cases, the Assessing Officer has passed the assessment orders on 19.12.2017. The death of the Ld. AR happened on 17.9.2020 and the appeals were filed before the Ld. CIT(A) on 9.6.2023. The Assessee has not given any plausible explanation for not filing the appeals after 17.9.2020 i.e. immediately after the death of the Ld. AR of the assessee. Though it is the ground that the Corona period was there from March 2020 to May 2022, however, no explanation has been given after May 2022 by the Assessee for filings the appeal on 9.6.2023. 6. In view of the above facts we find that the Assessee himself is negligent and callous in perusing legal remedy. We have no sympathy for such an Assessee. For the above purspeos, we may rely on the decision followed by the Tribunal in the case of “Esha Bhattacharya” Civil Appeal No. 8182-8184 of 2013 of Hon’ble Apex Court which is as under:- Printed from counselvise.com 1104 to 1106-Chd-2024 Atma Parkash, Patiala 4 The Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of \"Esha Bhattacharya\" Civil Appeal No. 8183-8184 of 2013 in which it has been held that it has been opined that generally is preferring appeal, delay are required to be condoned in the interest of justice and the courts are not supposed to reject the condonation on technical ground as it is the duty of court to grant justice. 11. It is pertinent to mention here that the said judgment has been followed by the Amritsar Bench of ITAT in the case of Gurfateh Films and Sippy Grewal Productions in TTA No. 92/Asr/2022 dated 23.12.2021 in which the same principles have been followed 12. Even, the judgment of Apex Court in the case of \"Esha Bhattacharya' in Civil Appeal has been considered and followed by the Chandigarh Bench of the ITAT in the case of Punjab Agricultural University in ITA No. 661/CHD/2022, 492/CHD/2022,) in which, it has been held as under:- \"The expression 'sufficient cause' employed by the legislature is adequately elastic to enable the courts to apply the law in a meaningful manner which sub serves the ends of justice, for that is the life-purpose of the existence of the institution of courts. The Ld. Judges emphasized on adoption of a liberal approach while dealing with the applications for condonation of delay as ordinary a litigant does not stand to the benefit by lodging an appellate and refusal to condone delay can result in a meritorious matter being thrown out at the very threshold and the cause of justice being defeated.\" 7. The reliance on the decision of the Coordinate Bench, in the identical facts is misplaced, as the above facts, more Printed from counselvise.com 1104 to 1106-Chd-2024 Atma Parkash, Patiala 5 to demonstrate any “sufficient cause” that prevented it from filing the appeal within the prescribed time. 9. The reliance on the decision of the Coordinate Bench, in the identical facts is misplaced, as the above facts, more particularly, the date of the death of the Ld. AR was not brought to the notice of the Hon'ble Coordinate Bench at the time of passing of the order. Therefore, this decision of the Coordinate Bench is clearly distinguishable as it was passed on the basis of material available on record i.e. without completely and fully discussing the relevant facts regarding the passing of the order by the Assessing Officer, death of the Ld. AR and subsequent failure of the Assessee to present the appeal within time. 10. In view of this, all the appeals filed by the Assessee are dismissed. Order pronounced on 29.10.2025. Sd/- Sd/- ( KRINWANT SAHAY) ( LALIET KUMAR ) Accountant Member Judicial Member “आर.क े.” Printed from counselvise.com 1104 to 1106-Chd-2024 Atma Parkash, Patiala 6 आदेश कȧ ĤǓतͧलͪप अĒेͪषत / Copy of the order forwarded to : 1. अपीलाथȸ/ The Appellant 2. Ĥ×यथȸ/ The Respondent 3. आयकर आयुÈत/ CIT 4. ͪवभागीय ĤǓतǓनͬध, आयकर अपीलȣय आͬधकरण, चÖडीगढ़/ DR, ITAT, CHANDIGARH 5. गाड[ फाईल/ Guard File सहायक पंजीकार/ Assistant Registrar Printed from counselvise.com "