GOPAL KRISHNA SAHU V. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD KANKER

TAXC/71/2024

AI Insights

The case involves Gopal Krishna Sahu, the appellant, who contested the dismissal of his appeal by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal on the grounds of limitation. The original assessment was for the year 2016-17, with an assessment order passed on 24.10.2019. The subsequent appeal to the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) was dismissed on 13.09.2023. The appeal to the Tribunal was filed late by 16 days due to administrative delays attributed to the Diwali Festival and General Assembly Elections. The Tribunal dismissed the appeal solely on the basis of this delay. The High Court, referencing the Supreme Court's judgment in Shrimant Jadhavrao Anandrao Pawar and Others v. Dilip Balvantrao Pawar and Another, found that the delay could be condoned to advance justice and allowed the appeal, remanding the case for a decision on its merits.

• Counselvise Citation: [2024] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 747794 (HC-CHHATTISGARH)
• Appeal Type: Others
• Pronouncement Date: 09-04-2024
• Assessment Year: misc
• Other Referred Cases: Shrimant Jadhavrao Anandrao Pawar and Others v. Dilip Balvantrao Pawar and Another
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act, 1961
• Result in Favour of: Others
• Court: HIGH COURT
• Department Lawyers: NAUSHINA ALI
• Assessee Lawyers: PRAFULL BHARAT; AYUSHI AGRAWAL; ABHISHEK GUPTA
• Keywords: Appeal; Assessment Order; Condonation of delay; Income Tax; Limitation
• Section: 253(5); 253

Judgement Text

"1 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR TAXC No. 71 of 2024 Gopal Krishna Sahu S/o Ghana Ram Sahu, aged about 36 years PAN- CSIPS9903G, R/o- H. No. 10, Main Road, Narharpur, Kanker- 494334, Chhattisgarh. ---- Appellant Versus 1. The Income Tax Officer, Ward Kanker, Government of India, Ministry of Finance, Income Tax Department, Office of Income Tax Officer, Ward Kanker, Chhattisgarh. 2. Union of India, Ministry of Finance, Department of Revenue, Central Board for Direct Taxes (CBDT), Income Tax Department, New Delhi. ---- Respondents For Appellant : Mr. Prafull N. Bharat, Senior Advocate with Ms. Ayushi Agrawal, Advocate and Mr. Abhishek Gupta, Advocate For Respondent No. 1 : Ms. Naushina Afrin Ali, Advocate on behalf of Mr. Amit Chaudhari, Advocate Hon'ble Shri Justice Goutam Bhaduri Hon'ble Shri Justice Radhakishan Agrawal Judgment on Board Per Goutam Bhaduri, Judge 09 . 04 .2024 2 Heard. 1. The Substantial Question which arises for consideration in this appeal is ‘as to whether the dismissal of the appeal by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal is only on the ground of limitation was justified? 2. The facts which led to a lis is that pursuant to a notice issued initially for the year 2016-17, an assessment order was passed on 24.10.2019. The appeal was filed before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre, that was also dismissed on 13.09.2023. Thereafter, the appeal was preferred under Section 253 of Income Tax Act, with a delay of 16 days as it was not filed within a period of 16 days. The appeal ought to have been filed on or before 10.11.2023, but it was filed on 27.11.2023. 3. Learned counsel for the appellant would submit that Section 253 sub Section 5 of Income Tax Act, 1961, gives the Appellate Tribunal, a jurisdiction to condone the delay if sufficient cause is shown. He would submit that the learned Tribunal has gone into the fact prior to the date of expiry of limitation and it held that those period has not been properly explained, which cannot be considered in view of judgment of Supreme Court in the case of Shrimant Jadhavrao Anandrao Pawar and Others v. Dilip Balvantrao Pawar and Another reported in AIR 2003 Supreme 3 Court 2176. He would submit that in order to advance the cause of justice on merit, the delay of 16 days, which is not exorbitant, may be condoned. 4. Learned counsel for the respondent opposes the argument and submit that bonafidely it has been explained and the order of the learned Tribunal is well merited, which do not call for any interference. 5. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties. 6. The short question which falls for consideration is as to whether the appeal should have been entertained by condoning the delay of 16 days by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal. 7. We went through the application, wherein the reasons for delay has been explained. The reasons have been assigned that because of the Diwali Festival, the offices were closed and it was followed by General Assembly Elections, due to which, the consultancy was hampered and the appeal could not be filed within the time. It has been submitted further that though defective appeal was preferred on 10.11.2023, but it was not prosecuted and subsequently fresh appeal was preferred. 8. Without further going into the issue and taking into the fact that no exorbitant delay has occurred, even otherwise Section 253 4 sub-Section (5) of I.T. Act, gives the power to Appellate Tribunal to condone the delay and in order to advance the cause of justice on merit, considering the reasons stated in application to condone the delay, we deem it proper that the delay in filing the appeal is required to be condoned, to give the appellant, to get the adjudication on merits. 9. Accordingly, the order dated 31.01.2024 is set aside. The case is remanded back to the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Raipur for adjudication on merits. The parties shall appear before the Tribunal on 07.05.2024. 10. Accordingly, the case is allowed. Sd/- Sd/- (Goutam Bhaduri) (Radhakishan Agrawal) JUDGE JUDGE Saurabh "