PRADEEP KUMAR KHANDELWAL V. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER -1(1)

TAXC/166/2024

AI Insights

The case involves Pradeep Kumar Khandelwal, the appellant, who challenged the decision of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) which dismissed his appeal as barred by limitation due to a 309-day delay. The delay was attributed to an incorrect email ID used for communication by the appellant's erstwhile representative. The High Court considered the precedents and the Supreme Court's directive to adopt a justice-oriented and liberal approach in such matters. The court found that the reason for the delay was uncontroverted and justified, leading to the condonation of the delay and remittance of the case to the ITAT for a decision on merits.

• Counselvise Citation: [2025] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 671164 (HC-CHHATTISGARH)
• Appeal Type: Others
• Pronouncement Date: 04-02-2025
• Assessment Year: misc
• Other Referred Cases: Vidya Shankar Jaiswal v. The Income-Tax Officer, Ward- 2, Ambikapur, Navodit Samaj Sevi Sanstha Vs. ITO
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act, 1956
• Result in Favour of: Others
• Court: HIGH COURT
• Department Lawyers: AJAY KUMRANI
• Assessee Lawyers: SIDDHARTH DUBEY; TRIDIP BHATTACHARYA
• Keywords: CIT(A); Condonation of delay; Delay in filing; Income Tax; ITAT
• Section: 260A

Judgement Text

" 1/4 (Tax Case No. 166 of 2024) 2025:CGHC:6251-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR TAX CASE NO. 166 OF 2024  Pradeep Kumar Khandelwal, S/o Shri Babulal Khandelwal, aged about 50 years, 10/683, Sector Balaji Nagar, Shivanand Nagar, WRS Colony, Raipur - 492 008 (C.G.) PAN- BJYPK5882N ... Appellant(s) Versus  The Income Tax Officer-1(1), Raipur (C.G.) ... Respondent(s) --------------------------------------------------------------------------------- For Appellant :- Mr. Siddharth Dubey, Advocate, along with Mr. Tridip Bhattacharya, 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 [04-02-2025] 1. The present appeal preferred by the appellant/ assessee under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1956 was admitted for hearing on 10.12.2024 by formulating the following substantial question of law:- 2/4 (Tax Case No. 166 of 2024) “Whether the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal is justified in holding that no sufficient cause has been shown for delay of 309 days in filing the appeal, by recording a finding which is perverse to the record” 2. The appellant/assessee preferred an appeal before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) [for short, CIT(A)] against the Order dated 21.12.2018 of the Assessing Officer. The CIT(A) dismissed the appeal of the assessee by its Order dated 9.2.2023 which was again challenged by the assessee in appeal before the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (for short, ITAT) and the ITAT dismissed the appeal by its Order dated 28.5.2024 on the ground of the appeal being barred by limitation on account of 309 days’ delay. It is this order of the ITAT against which the present appeal has been preferred by the appellant/assessee. 3. Mr. Siddharth Dubey, learned Counsel appearing for the appellant/assessee, submits that learned ITAT while passing the impugned Order has relied upon the decision of this Court rendered in the matter of Vidya Shankar Jaiswal v. The Income-Tax Officer, Ward- 2, Ambikapur1 which has already been set-aside by the Supreme Court by Order dated 31.1.20252 and therefore the impugned Order is liable to be set-aside 1 Tax Case No.86 of 2024, decided on 12.4.2024. 2 Special Leave Petition (Civil) Nos.26310-26311/2024 3/4 (Tax Case No. 166 of 2024) and the delay be condoned. In this regard, he also relied upon the judgment of this Court delivered in the matter of Navodit Samaj Sevi Sanstha Vs. ITO 3. 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 Counsels for parties, considered their rival submissions and also perused the record of the case with utmost care and circumspection. 6. Admittedly, there is a delay of 309 days in filing the appeal before the ITAT and for which the appellant/assessee has assigned the reason that the email ID which was given was not the email ID of the assessee, but it was of the erstwhile representative of the assessee and therefore the order could not be communicated and once the order has been communicated, the appeal was preferred. 7. The Supreme Court in the matter of Vidya Shankar Jaiswal (supra) while setting aside the order of this Court rejecting the appeal on the ground of delay, has held that the High Court ought to have adopted justice oriented and liberal approach by condoning the delay. 3 Tax Case Noo.225/2024, decided on 9.12.2024. 4/4 (Tax Case No. 166 of 2024) 8. In view of above and also for the reason shown by the appellant/assessee coupled with the fact the 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 309 days occurred in filing the appeal deserves to be and is hereby condoned and the substantial question of law is answered accordingly. 9. The matter is remitted to the ITAT for deciding the appeal on merits, in accordance with law, at the earliest. 10. The 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: 2025.02.06 17:09:55 +0530 "