Sham Singh, Panchkula V. ITO, Ward-4, Panchkula

ITA 496/CHANDI/2022

AI Insights

This case involves an appeal by the assessee, Sham Singh, against the order of the Ld. CIT(A), NFAC, Delhi, which dismissed the assessee's appeal concerning the levy of penalty under section 271(1)(c) due to a delay in filing. The assessee, an illiterate agriculturist, argued that the delay was due to their lack of knowledge about the intricacies of the Income Tax Law. The Tribunal noted a similar case where a delay of 1498 days was condoned and decided to remand the case back to the Ld. CIT(A) for a decision on the merits after considering the circumstances of the delay.

• Counselvise Citation: [2023] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 127799 (ITAT-CHANDIGARH)
• Duration Of Justice: 9 month(s) 1 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 01-03-2023
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: Not Allotted
• Next Hearing Date: 27-02-2023
• Assessment Year: 2011-2012
• Appeal Filed On: 29-05-2022
• Other Referred Cases: Improvement Trust Ludhiana Vs. Ujagar Singh & Ors, Jayvantsinh N Vaghela vs ITO, Paras Rice Mills, Kurukshetra vs CIT Karnal, Bhivchandra Shankar More Vs. Balu Gangaram More & Ors, N.Balakrishnan Vs. M. Krishnamurthy
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act, 1961
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Keywords: Condonation of delay; Set aside
• Section: 271(1)(c)

Judgement Text

आयकर अपील य अ धकरण,च डीगढ़ यायपीठ “बी” , च डीगढ़ IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, CHANDIGARH BENCH “B”, CHANDIGARH ीमती दवा संह, या#यक सद$य एवं ी &व'म संह यादव, लेखा सद$य BEFORE: SMT. DIVA SINGH, JM & SHRI. VIKRAM SINGH YADAV, AM ITA NO. 496/Chd/2022 Assessment Year : 2011-12 Sham Singh C/o C.A. Ajay Kumar Jain SCO 80-81 4 th Floor Sector 17C, Chandigarh The ITO Ward 4, Panchkula PAN NO: CWYPS4031B Appellant Respondent ! " Assessee by : Shri Ajay Jain, CA # ! " Revenue by : Shri Akashdeep, JCIT, Sr. DR $ % ! & Date of Hearing : 28/02/2023 '()* ! & Date of Pronouncement : 02/03/2023 आदेश/Order PER VIKRAM SINGH YADAV, A.M. : This is an appeal against the order of the Ld. CIT(A), NFAC, Delhi dt. 13/09/2021 pertaining to assessment year 2011-12 wherein the appeal filed by the assessee against the levy of penalty under section 271(1)(c) has been dismissed in limine on account of delay in filing the appeal by the assessee. 2. During the course of hearing, the Ld. AR submitted that there is a delay in filing the appeal by 199 days, it was submitted that the assessee is an agriculturist and being illiterate they had no knowledge about the intricacies of the Income Tax Law and as a result the appeal could not be filed in time. It was submitted that under similar circumstances, the appeal of the assessee in quantum proceeding wherein there were delay of around 1498 days has been condoned by the Coordinate Chandigarh Bench vide its order dt. 23/05/2022 in ITA No. 1483/Chd/2019. It was submitted that considering the same, the delay in filing the present appeal by the assessee may be condoned and the appeal of the assessee be admitted. 3. It was further requested that even before the Ld. CIT(A), the assessee could not appear for reasons beyond the control of the assessee, hence the matter may be 2 remanded back to the file of the Ld. CIT(A) to consider the assessee’s prayer for condonation of delay in light of the order of the Coordinate Chandigarh Bench vide its order dt. 23/05/2022 in ITA No. 1483/Chd/2019 and to decide the matter on merits of the case. 4. The Ld. DR is heard and has relied on the order of the Ld. CIT(A) and submitted that there is a substantial delay in filing the present appeal and even before the lower authorities, the assessee has not appeared. 5. The Coordinate Bench in assessee’s own case in ITA No. 1483/Chd/2019 dt. 23/05/2022 for A.Y 2011-12 has condoned the delay in filing the appeal and the matter in the quantum proceedings have been set-aside to the file of the ld CIT(A) and the relevant findings read as under: 6.0 We have heard the rival submissions and have also perused the material on record. The facts of the case are not in dispute and the only aspect to be considered initially is regarding the condonation of delay. It will be worthwhile at this juncture to reproduce the application received for condition of delay in one of the case i.e. in the case of Shri Kapur Singh and the same is being reproduced herein under for ready reference:- “1. That the order of CIT (A) dated 06.08.2015 was received on 23.09.2019. In fact the original order dated 06.08.2015 was not received and subsequently assessee filed a letter to CIT (A) dated 19.09.2019 received in the office of CIT(A) on 19.09.2019mentioning "I have received notice of demand under section 221 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 for the outstanding demand for the assessment year 2011-12 against which I have filed the appeal with your goodself. Since, I am an illiterate person having only source of income from agricultural operations and I was not aware of the intricacies of income tax matters, as such did not follow up the status of appeal proceedings from the counsel. On receipt of the said demand notice from Income Tax office for deposit of pending demand, I contacted my counsel. Then, it has come to my knowledge that the office of your goodself has passed order against my appeal which I have never received. Hence, you are requested to provide me copy of the order so that I may file the appeal with Hon'ble Tribunal accordingly." 2. That in response to letter detailed above administrative officer of CIT(A) Panchkula vide office letter dated 23.09.2019 received on 23.09.2019sent a copy of the order of CIT(A) in question against which the appeal is filed before ITAT on 18.11.2019 within stipulated time. Further, they have informed that the order was despatched from their office vide order no. 220-221 dated 06.08.2015 by speed post. The assessee has approached the concerned postal authorities to enquiry who had taken the delivery of the order sent through speed post as on 06.08.2015. The concerned post office person has told that they do not have record of delivery belonging to such very old period as this belongs to the period more than 6 months. As such there is no delay in filing of appeal from the actual date of Receipt of CIT A order. 3 3. That if I take the date of the learned CIT(A)'s order dated 06/08/2015 as date of service on assessee then there is a delay of 1498 days in filing of appeal before ITAT on 18.11.2019. 4. Since I was not aware of the intricacies of income tax matters, as such did not follow up the status of appeal proceedings from the counsel. That on receipt of demand notice from Income Tax office for deposit of pending demand I contacted my counsel and enquired about the appeal status which is detailed above in previous paras. 5. That the assessee has not gained any benefit in late filing of the appeal and is keenly interested to pursue the appeal filed on merits. That a huge demand is raised in this case and if not permitted to persue the matter on merits then it will not be possible for me to deposit the tax even after sale of my total assets. 6. Attention of your honour is further invited to the following decisions of different courts which suggest that if there is no ill intention, the delay should be condoned:- a) Improvement Trust Ludhiana Vs. Ujagar Singh & Ors, Civil Appeal No. 2395 of 2008 of June 9, 2010. b)Jayvantsinh N Vaghelavs ITO, 40 Taxmann.com 491 (Gujarat) c) Paras Rice Mills, Kurukshetravs CIT Karnal, ITA No. 657 of 2009 (P&H) The prayer is for condoning the delay in accordance with the facts and circumstances of the case. Your honor is requested to condone the delay in filing of appeal for 1498 days from the date of CIT (A) order. Though it is once again affirmed that I did not receive the original order of CIT A passed on 16.08.2015 and the same was received only on 23.09.2019.” 6.1 All the other captioned assessees have filed similar applications for condonation of delay. Although, the Ld. Sr. DR has vehemently opposed the assessees’ prayers for condonation of delay, we note that more often than not, the Higher Courts have been liberal in condoning the delay. The Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Bhivchandra Shankar More Vs. Balu Gangaram More & Ors. in Civil Apeal No. 4669 of 2019 [arising out of SLP (Civil) No. 28938 of 2014] on the condonation of delay, has held as under:- “15. It is a fairly well settled law that “sufficient cause” should be given liberal construction so as to advance sustainable justice when there is no inaction, no negligence nor want of bonafide could be imputable to the appellant. After referring to various judgments, in B. Madhuri, this Court held as under:- “6. The expression “sufficient cause” used in Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963 and other statutes is elastic enough to enable the courts to apply the law in a meaningful manner which serves the ends of justice. No hard-and-fast rule has been or can be laid down for deciding the applications for condonation of delay but over the years courts have repeatedly observed that a liberal approach needs to be adopted in such matters so that substantive rights of the parties are not defeated only on the ground of delay.” 16. Observing that the rules of limitation are not meant to destroy the rights of the parties, in N. Balakrishnan v. M. Krishnamurthy (1998) 7 SCC 123, this Court held as under:- “11. Rules of limitation are not meant to destroy the rights of parties. They are meant to see that parties do not resort to dilatory tactics, but seek their remedy 4 promptly. The object of providing a legal remedy is to repair the damage caused by reason of legal injury. The law of limitation fixes a lifespan for such legal remedy for the redress of the legal injury so suffered. Time is precious and wasted time would never revisit. During the efflux of time, newer causes would sprout up necessitating newer persons to seek legal remedy by approaching the courts. So a lifespan must be fixed for each remedy. Unending period for launching the remedy may lead to unending uncertainty and consequential anarchy. The law of limitation is thus founded on public policy. It is enshrined in the maxim interest reipublicae up sit finis litium (it is for the general welfare that a period be put to litigation). Rules of limitation are not meant to destroy the rights 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.” As pointed out earlier, an appeal under Section 96 CPC is a statutory right. Generally, delays in preferring appeals are required to be condoned, in the interest of justice, where there is no gross negligence or deliberate inaction or lack of bonafide is imputable to the party seeking condonation of delay.” 6.2 Similarly, the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of N.Balakrishnan Vs. M. Krishnamurthy, vide Judgement dated 03.09.1998, opined that 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. The Court went on to opine that in every case of delay there can be lapse on the part of the litigants concerned but that alone is not enough to turn down his plea and shut the door against him. The Hon'ble Apex Court further held that if the explanation does not smackof mala fides or it is not put forth as a part of a dilatory strategy, the court should show utmost consideration to the suitor. It was further held that there is no presumption that the delay in approaching the court is always deliberate and the words “sufficient cause” u/s 5 of the Limitation Act should receive a liberal construction so as to advance substantial justice. 6.3 Therefore, on the facts of the present cases and keeping in view the applications submitted by the captioned assessees for the condonation of delay and respectfully applying the principles laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court, as stated in the preceding paragraphs, we are of the considered opinion that on the facts and circumstances of the cases, the explanation for delay offered by the assessees cannot be said to smack of mala fides or that it was put forth as a part of dilatory strategy. Therefore, we deem it appropriate to condone the delay in the cases of all the captioned assessees. The appeals are accordingly admitted for the purpose of hearing on merits of the case. 6.4 As far the merits of the cases are concerned, it is seen that the assessee has filed paper book containing various orders of the Tribunal which support the case of the assessee. However, it is further seen that no paper book has been filed before us in any of the cases containing basis documentary evidences which would establish the facts of the case. The assessees have not filed any documentary evidences before us which would show the break-up of payments received or the copy of orders passed by the competent authority granting compensation or even the documents which has proved that the lands in question were compulsorily acquired or documents to prove that the lands acquired were agricultural lands. In the absence of these documents, we are unable to take a view on the merits of the appeals before us. However, since we have already condoned the delay in filing the appeals before the Tribunal, in the interest of substantial justice, we restore these appeals to the file of Ld. First 5 Appellate Authority with a direction to adjudicate the issue after giving due consideration to the various judicial precedents and documentary evidences which the assessee might like to submit before him. Needless to say, the Ld. First Appellate Authority will allow adequate opportunity to the assessees to present their cases before proceedings to pass orders in accordance with law. 6. After hearing both the parties and perusing the material available on the record and taking into consideration, the decision of the Coordinate Bench in ITA No. 1483/Chd/2019 dt. 23/05/2022, the delay in filing the present appeal as well the delay in filing the appeal before the Ld. CIT(A) is hereby condoned in the interest of substantial justice and the matter is set aside to the file of the Ld. CIT(A) to decide the same on merits taking into consideration the outcome of the quantum appeal which has been set aside vide the aforesaid order passed by the Coordinate Chandigarh Bench in ITA No. 1483/Chd/2019 dt. 23/05/2022 and after providing reasonable opportunity to the assessee. 7. In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced in the open Court on 02/03/2023 Sd/- Sd /- दवा संह &व'म संह यादव (DIVA SINGH) ( VIKRAM SINGH YADAV) या#यक सद$य / JUDICIAL MEMBER लेखा सद$य/ ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AG Date: 02/03/2023 ( + ! , - . - Copy of the order forwarded to : 1. The Appellant 2. The Respondent 3. $ / CIT 4. $ / 0 1 The CIT(A) 5. - 2 ग 4 5 & 4 5 678 ग9 DR, ITAT, CHANDIGARH 6. ग 8 : % Guard File ( + $ By order, ; # Assistant Registrar