Shri Kuilwinder Singh, Ropar V. ITO Ward-2(2), Ropar

ITA 208/CHANDI/2020

• Counselvise Citation: [2021] 109 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 4892 (ITAT-CHANDIGARH)
• Duration Of Justice: 11 month(s) 1 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 28-01-2021
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: SMC
• Assessment Year: 2010-2011
• Appeal Filed On: 27-02-2020
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Keywords: Period of limitation; Time period of passing order; Condonation of delay
• Section: 143(3); 207; 147

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DIVISION BENCH, CHANDIGARH BEFORE MRS. ANNAPURNA GUPTA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER & SHRI R.L NEGI, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA NOS. 207 & 208/CHD/2020) / ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2010-11 SHRI KULWINDER SINGH, VILL. KHAIRABAD, ROPAR THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2(2), ROPAR ./PAN NO: CCTPS4938N APPELLANT /RESPONDENT HEARING THROUGH VIDEO CONFERENCING /ASSESSEE BY : SHRI PARIKSHIT AGGARWAL, CA ! / REVENUE BY : SMT. MEENAKSHI VOHRA, ADDL. CIT SHRI ASHOK KHANNA, ADDL CIT ' #$ /DATE OF HEARING : 28.01.2021 %&'($ / DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 28 .01.2021 / ORDER PER BENCH: THE ASSESSEE HAS FILED THE CAPTIONED APPEALS AGAINS T THE TWO ORDERS DATED 18.10.2019 PERTAINING TO THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2010-11 PASSED BY THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS)-1, CHANDIG ARH, [(FOR SHORT THE CIT(A)]. VIDE THE SAID ORDERS, THE LD. CIT(A ) HAS DISMISSED THE APPEALS FILED BY THE ASSESSEE AGAINST THE ASSESSMEN T ORDER PASSED U/S 143(3) READ WITH SECTION 147 OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 (IN SHORT 'THE ACT') AND THE APPEAL FILED AGAINST THE PENALTY ORDE R PASSED U/S 271 (1)(C) OF THE ACT. SINCE BOTH THE APPEAL PERTAIN TO THE SA ME ASSESSEE FOR THE ITA NO. 207 & 208-CHD-2020- SHRI KULWINDER SINGH, CHANDIGARH 2 SAME ASSESSMENT YEAR, THESE WERE CLUBBED, HEARD TOG ETHER AND ARE BEING DISPOSED OF BY THIS COMMON ORDER FOR THE SAKE OF CO NVENIENCE. 2. AT THE OUTSET, THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED BEFORE US THAT THE ASSESSEE WANTS TO SETTLE HIS DISPUTES UNDE R THE PROVISIONS OF VIVAD SE VISWAS SCHEME 2020, HOWEVER, SINCE THERE I S DELAY OF 70 DAYS EACH IN FILING THESE APPEALS THE ASSESSEE HAS FILED SEPARATE APPLICATIONS FOR CONDONATION OF DELAY ALONG WITH THE AFFIDAVITS. THE LD. COUNSEL FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT AS PER THE CBDT CIRCULAR NO. 21/2020 DATED 4.12.2020, IN SUCH CASES THE ASSESSEE IS ELIGIBLE T O OPT FOR THE SCHEME IF THE APPELLATE AUTHORITY CONDONES THE DELAY IN FILIN G OF THE APPEALS. 3. THE LD. COUNSEL FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT THE ORDER S OF THE LD. CIT(A) WERE SERVED ELECTRONICALLY ON THE APPLICANT ON 20.1 0.2019 AND THE ASSESSEE BEING AN AGRICULTURIST, WAS NOT AT ALL CON VERSANT WITH TECHNOLOGY. FURTHER, THE ASSESSEE CAME TO KNOW ABOU T THIS FACT ON 21.1.2020 AND THEREAFTER THE ASSESSEE WITHOUT ANY F URTHER UNNECESSARY DELAY, FILED THE PRESENT APPEALS ON 27.2.2020. THE LD. COUNSEL FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT THE DELAY WAS NOT CAUSED DUE TO NEGL IGENCE ACT OR INACTION ON THE PART OF THE ASSESSEE BUT WAS CAUSED DUE TO A BONA FIDE REASON. IN VIEW OF THE AFORESAID FACTS AND CIRCUMST ANCES OF THE CASE, THE LD. COUNSEL SUBMITTED THAT THE APPLICATIONS OF THE ASSESSEE MAY BE ALLOWED AND THE DELAY MAY BE CONDONED IN BOTH THE C ASES AND THE APPEALS OF THE ASSESSEE MAY BE DISMISSED AS WITHDRA WN SO THAT THE ITA NO. 207 & 208-CHD-2020- SHRI KULWINDER SINGH, CHANDIGARH 3 ASSESSEE MAY AVAIL THE BENEFIT OF PROVISIONS UNDER VIVAD SE VISWAS ACT, 2020. 4. ON THE OTHER HAND, THE LD. DR OPPOSED THE DELAY ON THE GROUND THAT THERE WAS NO SUFFICIENT CAUSE WHICH PREVENTED THE ASSESSEE TO FILE THE PRESENT APPEALS WITHIN LIMITATION PERIOD. 5. WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AND PERUSED THE MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON RECORD. AS POINTED OUT BY THE LD. COUN SEL THE ASSESSEE THE ASSESSEE BEING AN AGRICULTURIST IS NOT CONVERSANT W ITH THE TECHNOLOGY AND HE WAS NOT AWARE OF THE FACT THAT THE ORDERS OF THE LD. CIT(A) HAD BEEN UPLOADED ON THE PORTAL OF THE DEPARTMENT ON 20.10.2 019. HOWEVER, WHEN HE CAME TO KNOW ABOUT THE SAME THE ASSESSEE IMMEDIA TELY FILED THE PRESENT APPEALS. 6. THE HON'BLE SUPREME COURT IN THE CASE OF COLLECTOR LAND ACQUISITION VS MST. KATIJI & ORS (1987) AIR 1353, HAS LAID DOWN THE PRINCIPLES TO BE FOLLOWED WHILE DEALING WITH THE IS SUE OF CONDONATION OF DELAY WHICH ARE AS FOLLOWS: - 1. ORDINARILY A LITIGANT DOES NOT STAND TO BENEFI T BY LODGING AN APPEAL LATE. 2. REFUSING TO CONDONE DELAY CAN RESULT IN A MERIT ORIOUS MATTER BEING THROWN OUT AT THE VERY THRESHOLD AND CAUSE OF JUSTI CE BEING DEFEATED. AS AGAINST THIS WHEN DELAY IS CODONED THE HIGHEST THAT CAN HAPPEN IS THAT A CAUSE WOULD BE DECIDED ON MERITS A FTER HEARING THE PARTIES. 3. 'EVERY DAY'S DELAY MUST BE EXPLAINED' DOES NOT MEAN THAT A PEDANTIC APPROACH SHOULD BE MADE. WHY NOT EVERY HOU R'S DELAY, ITA NO. 207 & 208-CHD-2020- SHRI KULWINDER SINGH, CHANDIGARH 4 EVERY SECOND'S DELAY? THE DOCTRINE MUST BE APPLIED IN A RATIONAL COMMON SENSE PRAGMATIC MANNER. 4. WHEN SUBSTANTIAL JUSTICE AND TECHNICAL CONSIDER ATIONS ARE PITTED AGAINST EACH OTHER, CAUSE OF SUBSTANTIAL JUSTICE DE SERVES TO BE PREFERRED FOR THE OTHER SIDE CANNOT CLAIM TO HAVE V ESTED RIGHT IN INJUSTICE BEING DONE BECAUSE OF A NON-DELIBERATE DE LAY. 5. THERE IS NO PRESUMPTION THAT DELAY IS OCCASIONE D DELIBERATELY, OR ON ACCOUNT OF CULPABLE NEGLIGENCE, OR ON ACCOUNT OF MA LA 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 BU T BECAUSE IT IS CAPABLE OF REMOVING INJUSTICE AND IS EXPECTED TO DO SO. 7. IN THE PRESENT CASE, WE DO NOT FIND ANY INACTION OR NEGLIGENCE ON THE PART OF THE ASSESSEE. IN OUR CONSIDERED VIEW, T HE ASSESSEE HAD A SUFFICIENT CAUSE WHICH PREVENTED HIM FROM FILING TH E PRESENT APPEALS WITHIN THE LIMITATION PERIOD. NO PREJUDICE IS GOING TO BE CAUSED TO THE REVENUE. HENCE, WE ARE OF THE VIEW THAT THESE ARE T HE FIT CASES, WHERE THE DELAY CAN BE CONDONED. IN THE LIGHT OF THE FACTS A ND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASES AND THE PRINCIPLES OF LAW LAID DOWN BY TH E HONBLE SUPREME COURT IN THE CASE OF COLLECTOR LAND ACQUISITION VS MST. KATIJI & ORS (SUPRA), WE CONDONE THE DELAY IN FILING THE PRESENT APPEALS AND DISMISS THE APPEALS OF THE ASSESSEE AS WITHDRAWN WITH A L IBERTY TO GET THESE APPEALS RESTORED BY FILING M.AS. IN CASE THE ISSUES ARE NOT SETTLED UNDER VIVAD SE VISWAS SCHEME. ITA NO. 207 & 208-CHD-2020- SHRI KULWINDER SINGH, CHANDIGARH 5 8. IN THE RESULT, APPEALS FILED BY THE ASSESSEE ARE DISMISSED AS WITHDRAWN. ORDER PRONOUNCED ON 28.01.2021. SD/- SD/- ( ANNAPURNA GUPTA) (R.L.NEGI) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER DATED : ** &+,-.- / COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO : 1. / THE APPELLANT 2. / THE RESPONDENT 3. ' / / CIT 4. ' / ( )/ THE CIT(A) 5. -012 , $2 , 34516 / DR, ITAT, CHANDIGARH 6. 157# / GUARD FILE &+ ' / BY ORDER, 8! / ASSISTANT REGISTRAR