Reena Agarwal V. Union of India and Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) Dibrugarh and Income Tax Officer Ward No. 2 Tinsukia

WP(C)/3735/2020

AI Insights

The case involves Reena Agarwal, who filed a writ petition against the Union of India and other respondents, challenging the rejection of her appeal by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), Dibrugarh. The appeal was initially rejected due to delay, which the Commissioner found not justified as the reasons provided were unrelated to the interests charged by the Assessing Officer. The petitioner argued that the delay was caused by the COVID-19 pandemic, which hindered her ability to seek legal advice and pursue remedies in a timely manner. The court found that the Commissioner did not adequately consider the materials and circumstances surrounding the delay and thus remanded the case for a fresh decision.

• Counselvise Citation: [2020] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 801035 (HC-MISC)
• Appeal Type: Others
• Pronouncement Date: 20-10-2020
• Assessment Year: misc
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act, 1961
• Result in Favour of: Others
• Court: HIGH COURT
• Department Lawyers: S SARMA
• Assessee Lawyers: G N SAHEWALLA
• Keywords: Appeal rejection; Assessment; Condonation of delay; Income Tax; Recovery
• Section: 147; 143(3); 250; 154; 234B; 234A; 234C

Judgement Text

"Page No.# 1/4 GAHC010122472020 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : WP(C) 3735/2020 1:REENA AGARWAL W/O- LATE AJAY AGARWAL, PRESENTLY RESIDENT OF HOUSE NO. C-1087 SUSHANT LOK- 1, GURGAON, HARYANA AND EARLIER RESIDENT OF ANIL BROTHERS AND CO., A.T. ROAD, TINSUKIA, ASSAM- 786125. VERSUS 1:UNION OF INDIA AND 2 ORS. REPRESENTED BY THE MINISTRY OF FINANCE, GOVT. OF INDIA, NEW DELHI. 2:COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) DIBRUGARH AYAKAR BHAWAN C.R. BUILDING MANCOTA ROAD DIBRUGARH. 3:INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD NO. 2 TINSUKIA Advocate for the Petitioner : MR G N SAHEWALLA Advocate for the Respondent : ASSTT.S.G.I. BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SOUMITRA SAIKIA ORDER Date : 20-10-2020 Heard Mr. G. N. Sahewalla, learned senior counsel assisted by Mr. M. Sahewalla, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. S. Sarma, learned senior standing counsel, Income Tax Department (NER) for the respondent Nos. 1, 2 & 3. Page No.# 2/4 2. This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner, being aggrieved, by the rejection of the appeal filed by the petitioner as an assessee under Section 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. It is submitted by the learned senior counsel for the petitioner that pursuant to the proceedings under Section 147 of the Income Tax Act an assessment was made by the Assessing Officer seeking recovery of an amount of Rs.10,83,410/-. 3. Being aggrieved, the petitioner preferred an appeal under Section 250 before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), Dibrugarh. However, by order dated 21.05.2019, the appeal preferred by the petitioner/assessee was rejected on the ground of delay by holding that the grounds urged for condonation of delay that the delay had occurred due to the pendency of a petition filed by the petitioner under Section 154 and the grounds taken in the appeal have no connection. 4. The learned senior counsel for the petitioner submits that because of the ensuing Covid-19 pandemic situation, as the petitioner is a resident of Gurgaon, Haryana she could not take proper legal advice in time and pursue the adequate remedy available. Therefore, there was some delay in approaching the Court. 5. Mr. S. Sarma, learned senior standing counsel for the Income Tax Department submits that since the petitioner is before the Court the matter may be decided on merits and permitting to the Department to file the required counter-affidavit necessary. 6. Upon hearing the learned counsels for the parties, it is seen that the petitioner had approached the Department authorities for availing the statutory remedy but for the dismissal of her appeal preferred on the ground of delay she is unable to avail the statutory remedy. 7. A perusal of Section 249 of the Income Tax Act reveals that sub-Section (3) of Section 249 provides that the Commissioner(appeals) may admit an appeal after expiration of the period (period within which the statutory appeal is to be preferred), if he is satisfied that the appellant had sufficient cause for not presenting it within that period. 8. It is also seen from the memo of appeals at page No. 71 of the writ petition that the authorized representative who was authorized to file the appeal indicated the grounds for the delay at serial No. 15 of the appeal memo form. The grounds taken by the appellant are Page No.# 3/4 extracted as under:- 14. Whether there is delay in filing appeal? Yes 15. If reply to 14 is yes, enter the grounds for condonation of delay (not exceeding 500 words) The appellant has filed for rectification u/s 154 with A.O. for interest calculations u/s 234A/234B/234C. So there was delay in filing of return. 9. The impugned order dated 21.05.2019 is extracted as under:- “Instant appeal was instituted on 06.06.2018 and is directed against order u/s 143(3)/147 of the I.T. Act, 1961 which was passed by the ITO, Ward-2, Tinsukia on 31.12.2017. 2. Order appealed against was stated to have been served on 02.01.2018. Appeal should have been filed by 01.02.2018. There is delay of over four months in filing the appeal. In the condonation application, the reason given for delay in filing the appeal reads as: “The appellant had filed for rectification u/s 154 with A.O. for interest calculation u/s 234A/234B/234C. So there was delay in filing of return(sic)” 3. Delay in filing of appeal can be condoned if there is good and sufficient reason for the delay. The duration of delay is of no moment if the reason for the same is good and sufficient. In case of present assessee, the reason given cannot be considered as good and sufficient. Issues raised in the appeal have no connection with interests charged by the AO which were agitated by appellant u/s 154 of the Act. The delay does not deserve to be condoned. The appeal is discarded at the threshold level. The same is treated as dismissed for statistical purposes.” 10. A perusal of the impugned order does not reveal the satisfaction stated to have been arrived at by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) was duly arrived at after taking into consideration the facts and circumstances of the case. The Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)’s order does not record the materials on the basis of which the satisfaction was arrived at that the grounds urged by the petitioner in support of its prayer for condonation of delay are not sufficient grounds to condone the delay. It is not clear from the impugned order Page No.# 4/4 of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) as to why a finding was recorded by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) that the rectification application under Section 154 before the Assessing Officer are issues which have no connection with the interest charged by the AO. The Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) while passing the impugned order appears to have touched upon the issues which have some bearing in the outcome of the appeal preferred by the petitioner, without reference to the materials relied upon to arrive at such a finding. 11. Upon due consideration of the materials available before the Court as well as upon perusal of the relevant provisions of the Act and also upon hearing the learned counsels for the parties, it will be in the interest of justice to remand the matter back in the Commissioner of Income Tax Act(Appeals) to re-decide afresh the issue of condonation of delay by providing adequate opportunities to the Assessee to refer to and/or rely on, any such grounds as may be sought to be relied upon her and after proper hearing in the matter. 12. Accordingly, without expressing anything on merits, this writ petition is disposed of by setting aside the order dated 21.05.2019 and by remanding the matter back to the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals). The Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) shall hear and pass adequate orders within 60(sixty) days from the date of the receipt of the certified copy of this order. 13. It is directed that the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) will proceed after issuance of proper notice on the petitioner/assessee and thereafter afford a reasonable opportunity of hearing to the petitioner/assessee. 14. A copy of this order is marked to the learned standing counsel Income Tax Department for due consideration to the respondent authorities. 15. This Writ Petition is, accordingly, disposed of. JUDGE Comparing Assistant "