JAGDISH PRASAD SINGHANIA V. ADDITIONAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (TDS)

TAXC/17/2025

AI Insights

The case involves Jagdish Prasad Singhania, the appellant, who faced penalties and additions to his income tax assessments by the Additional Commissioner of Income Tax (TDS), Raipur, and upheld by the Commissioner of Income-Tax (Appeals). The appellant's subsequent appeal to the ITAT was dismissed due to a delay of 161 days, which the ITAT did not condone. The appellant challenged this decision in the High Court of Chhattisgarh, which found merit in his reasons for the delay, primarily health issues and his wife's surgery, and thus condoned the delay, allowing the appeal to proceed on its merits.

• Counselvise Citation: [2025] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 761553 (HC-CHHATTISGARH)
• Appeal Type: Others
• Pronouncement Date: 24-02-2025
• Assessment Year: misc
• Other Referred Cases: Vidya Shankar Jaiswal v. The Income-Tax Officer, Ward-2, Ambikapur, Pradeep Kumar Khandelwal v. The Income Tax Officer-1(1), Raipur
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act, 1956
• Result in Favour of: Others
• Court: HIGH COURT
• Department Lawyers: AJAY KUMRANI
• Assessee Lawyers: SHIV SHRIVASTAVA
• Keywords: Condonation of delay; Delay in filing; Income Tax; Penalty; TDS
• Section: 271(1)(c); 271C; 260; 69(c)

Judgement Text

" 1/5 (Tax Case No. 17 of 2025) 2025:CGHC:9313-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR TAX CASE NO. 17 OF 2025  Jagdish Prasad Singhania, S/o Shankar Pal Singhania, aged about 52 years, Prop. of M/s Govinda Roadlines and Swastik Minerals, Neora, Tilda, District Raipur (C.G.) ... Appellant(s) Versus  Additional Commissioner of Income Tax (TDS), Raipur (C.G.) ... Respondent(s) --------------------------------------------------------------------------------- For Appellant :- Dr. Shiv Kumar Shrivastava, Advocate. For Respondent :- Mr. Ajay Kumrani, Advocate. --------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Division Bench Hon'ble Shri Justice Sanjay K. Agrawal Hon'ble Shri Justice Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal Judgment on Board [24-02-2025] 1. The present appeal preferred by the Appellant/ Assessee under Section 260 of the Income Tax Act, 1956 (the Act) was admitted for hearing by this Court on 21.2.2025 by formulating the following substantial question of law:- 2/5 (Tax Case No. 17 of 2025) “Whether the ITAT is justified in dismissing the appeal preferred by the Appellant/Assessee on the point that no sufficient cause has been shown for delay of 161 days in filing the appeal before ITAT, Raipur by recording a finding which is perverse to the record” 2. The Assessing Officer (A.O.) passed Assessment Order dated 29.12.2016 by adding amount of Rs.14,11,167/- under Section 69(C) of the Act and also Rs.50,000/- and Rs.15,000/- disallowing wages expenses and office expenses (total Rs.4,76,167/-), assigning the reason that addition of Rs.14,11,167/- is an unexplained income and therefore a penalty proceeding needs to be initiated separately under Section 271(1)(C) of the Act for concealment of income and referred the matter to Additional Commissioner of Income-Tax (TDS), Raipur [ACIT (TDS)]. The ACIT (TDS) vide its Order dated 30.6.2019 held that the assessee has failed to deduct TDS on the amount of interest paid/credited and therefore imposed a penalty of Rs.7,70,000/- under Section 271C of the Act against the assessee. Assailing the said penalty order passed by ACIT (TDS), the assessee preferred an appeal before Commissioner of Income-Tax (Appeals) [CIT(A)] who affirmed the penalty order passed by ACIT (TDS) and dismissed the appeal of the assessee 3/5 (Tax Case No. 17 of 2025) vide its Order dated 29.7.2022. Against the orders passed by the CIT(A) and ACIT (TDS), the assessee filed an appeal before the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal [ITAT], but with a delay of 161 days. The ITAT, after hearing the appeal on the issue of delay, by its Order dated 2.11.2023 rejected the application for condonation of delay, thereby dismissing the appeal of the assessee on the ground of it being barred by limitation on account of 161 days’ delay. It is this order of the ITAT against which the present appeal has been preferred by the assessee. 3. Dr. Shiv Kumar Shrivastava, learned Counsel appearing for Appellant/Assessee, submits that the Supreme Court in the matter of Vidya Shankar Jaiswal v. The Income-Tax Officer, Ward-2, Ambikapur1 has condoned the delay of 166 days in filing the appeal and therefore the impugned Order passed by the ITAT is also liable to be set-aside and the delay of 161 occurred in filing of the appeal be condoned. In this regard, learned Counsel has also relied upon the Order dated 4.2.2025 of this Court passed in Tax Case No.166 of 20242. 1 Special Leave Petition (Civil) Nos.26310-26311/2024, decided on 31.1.2025. 2 Pradeep Kumar Khandelwal v. The Income Tax Officer-1(1), Raipur. 4/5 (Tax Case No. 17 of 2025) 4. Mr. Ajay Kumrani, learned Counsel appearing for the Respondent-Department, however supports the impugned Order and prays for dismissal of the appeal. 5. We have heard learned Counsel(s) for parties, considered their rival submissions and also perused the record with utmost care and circumspection. 6. Admittedly, there is a delay of 161 days in filing the appeal before the ITAT and for which the Appellant/ Assessee has assigned the reason, supported with his affidavit dated 6.3.2023 and also certain medical documents (uncertified), that the wife of the assessee had undergone a major surgery and the assessee himself was not well during the relevant period of time and therefore delay of 161 occurred in filing the appeal be condoned, which the ITAT by the impugned Order rejected, holding that no justifiable reason has been assigned by the assessee for the inordinate delay of 161 days involved in filing the appeal and accordingly the appeal was also dismissed being barred by limitation. 7. The Supreme Court vide its Order dated 31.1.2025 passed in the matter of Vidya Shankar Jaiswal (supra) while setting aside the order of this Court 5/5 (Tax Case No. 17 of 2025) rejecting the appeal on the ground of delay of 166 days therein, has held that the High Court ought to have adopted justice oriented and liberal approach by condoning the delay. 8. In view of above and also for the reason shown by the Appellant/Assessee for the delay, coupled with the fact the Respondent/Revenue did not file any counter- affidavit controverting the reason assigned by the assessee and as such the reason assigned by the assessee for delay in filing the appeal remained uncontroverted, the delay of 161 days occurred in filing the appeal before ITAT deserves to be and is hereby condoned and the substantial question of law is answered accordingly. 9. The matter is remitted back to the ITAT for deciding the appeal on merits, in accordance with law, at the earliest. 10. The present appeal stands allowed to the extent indicated herein-above, leaving the parties to bear their own costs. Sd/- Sd/- (Sanjay K. Agrawal) (Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal) Judge Judge sharad SHARAD KUMAR YADAV Digitally signed by SHARAD KUMAR YADAV Date: 2025.02.25 17:59:46 +0530 "