Balwan Singh V. I.T.O. Ward 1(4) Chandigarh

ITA/359/2013

AI Insights

The case involves Balwan Singh, the appellant, who contested the dismissal of his appeal by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal due to a procedural delay. The Tribunal had dismissed his appeal as it was filed 20 days late, despite the appellant's claim that the delay was due to the late receipt of the certified copy of the High Court's orders. The High Court, upon reviewing the circumstances, noted that the delay was not intentional and was caused by factors beyond the appellant's control. The court emphasized the importance of adjudicating disputes on merits rather than on technical grounds, thereby setting aside the Tribunal's decision and remanding the case for a substantive hearing.

• Counselvise Citation: [2014] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 691629 (HC-CHANDIGARH)
• Appeal Type: Others
• Pronouncement Date: 18-03-2014
• Assessment Year: misc
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act, 1961
• Result in Favour of: Others
• Court: HIGH COURT
• Keywords: Assessment Year 1995-96; Condonation of delay; Income Tax; Income tax appellate tribunal
• Section: 260-A

Judgement Text

"ITA No.359 of 2013 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH ITA No.359 of 2013 (O&M) Date of Decision: 18.03.2014 Balwan Singh ... Appellant Vs. I.T.O. Ward 1(4) Chandigarh ... Respondent **** CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAY KUMAR MITTAL HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE ANITA CHAUDHRY Present:- Mr. Balwan Singh, Appellant in person Non for the respondent. **** ANITA CHAUDHRY, J. 1. This appeal is under Section 260-A of the Income Tax Act, 1961, assailing the order dated 28.02.2013 (Annexure A-4) passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Chandigarh Bench 'A' (hereinafter referred to as the Tribunal) in ITA No.1203/Chandi/2010 relating to assessment year 1995-96. 2. A Civil Writ Petition bearing No.11443 of 2009 was preferred by the petitioner, one other Writ Petition No.5292 of 2009 was filed by Malwinderjit Singh Waraich. Both the writ petitions were disposed of on 06.09.2010 giving liberty to both the petitioners to file appeal before the Tribunal. It was further directed that if the appeals were filed Sunil 2014.04.03 16:25 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document ITA No.359 of 2013 -2- within 15 days from the date of order then no objection regarding limitation would be raised. The appellant filed an appeal which was dismissed on 28.02.2013. The Tribunal refused to condone the delay as it had been filed late by 20 days. 3. The appellant's grievance is that there was no delay and he could obtain the certified copy of the orders of the High Court only on 01.10.2010 and the appeal was filed on 11.10.2010 i.e. within 15 days and on the advise of his counsel an application for condonation of delay was also filed. Explaining the facts it was submitted that the delay was for reasons beyond his control. 4. We have heard the petitioner. The record has been perused. 5. Civil Writ Petition No.11443 of 2009 and Civil Writ Petition No.5292 of 2009 were decided on 06.09.2010. The petitioner(s) were allowed to withdraw the writ petition(s) and to assail the order of assessment and levy of penalty under the Income Tax Act, 1961 as remedy of appeal was available. Directions were given to file the appeal within 15 days from the date of the order. The explanation offered by the appellant is that he received orders of the High Court only on 01.10.2010 and he had filed the appeal within 15 days of receipt of the order. Sunil 2014.04.03 16:25 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document ITA No.359 of 2013 -3- 6. We find that the appellant's right to get the matter adjudicated on merits had been rejected taking a hyper technical view. The appellant had offered sufficient reason which should have been accepted. The High Court had allowed 15 days time to file the appeal but the delay occurred as the copy of order was supplied to him only on 01.10.2010. 7. The Hon'ble Apex Court and this Court have consistently held that a liberal approach should be adopted while considering applications for condonation of delay where delay is of short duration as the object of administration of justice is adjudication of dispute on merits and not denial of petitioners' right on technical/procedural grounds while invoking limitation. The appellant had submitted before the Tribunal and had demonstrated the reason for the delay in filing the appeal. The delay was neither malafide nor deliberate or intentional but ex-facie bonafide occasioned for a valid reason. There was sufficient cause for not presenting the appeal within 15 days as provided in the order. The Hon'ble Apex Court on numerous occasions has held that the expression 'sufficient cause' is adequately elastic to facilitate the Courts to apply the law in a meaningful manner to sub-serve the ends of justice and refusal to condone the delay at the very threshold defeats Sunil 2014.04.03 16:25 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document ITA No.359 of 2013 -4- the cause of justice. Though, cases of deliberate and inordinate delay stand on a different footing. 8. In the present case, the delay was only of a few days which should have been condoned. The order dated 28.02.2013 (Annexure A-4) passed by the Tribunal is set aside. The appeal is allowed. The matter is remanded back to the Tribunal to decide the case on merits, after issuing notice to the parties. Notice to the appellant be issued on the address supplied by him i.e. House No.436, Village Saketri, Mansa Devi Complex, Sector -1, Panchkula. (AJAY KUMAR MITTAL) (ANITA CHAUDHRY) JUDGE JUDGE 18.03.2014 Sunil Sunil 2014.04.03 16:25 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document "