SH SUBHASH CHAND AGARWAL V. ACIT CIRCLE-I

ITA/175/2018

AI Insights

The case involves an appeal by Sh Subhash Chand Agarwal against an order of the ITAT dated 10.04.2015, which was filed under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The appeal was significantly delayed, being filed 998 days after the ITAT's decision. The appellant sought to condone this delay, attributing it to an inadvertent mistake by their clerk, who failed to transfer the necessary documents to the legal counsel in a timely manner. The High Court of Rajasthan, referencing a similar case involving another appellant, Mr. Prateek Agarwal, dismissed the appeal due to the inadequacy of the reasons provided for the delay.

• Counselvise Citation: [2019] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 670465 (HC-RAJASTHAN)
• Appeal Type: Others
• Pronouncement Date: 16-07-2019
• Assessment Year: misc
• Other Referred Cases: D.B. Income Tax Appeal No.174/2018
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act, 1961, Limitation Act
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: HIGH COURT
• Department Lawyers: PARINITOO JAIN
• Assessee Lawyers: SANJEEV SINGHAL
• Keywords: Condonation of delay; Income Tax; ITAT; Limitation
• Section: 260A; 5

Judgement Text

"HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR D.B. Income Tax Appeal No. 175/2018 Sh Subhash Chand Agarwal, 756, Pratap Nagar, Dadabari, Kota ----Appellant Versus ACIT Circle-I, Kota. ----Respondent For Appellant(s) : Mr. Sanjeev Singhal For Respondent(s) : Ms. Parinitoo Jain HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA Judgment 16/07/2019 1. The present appeal under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 is horribly barred by 998 days. The appeal is against a common order of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (hereafter referred to as “ITAT”), made on 10.04.2015. 2. Against the very same order, the other assessee, who was the appellant before the ITAT (Mr. Prateek Agarwal) had preferred D.B. Income Tax Appeal No.174/2018, which was dismissed on 01.07.2019. The said order reads as follows:- “This appeal has been filed on 18.5.2018 against the judgement of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal dated 10.4.2015. The appeal is enormously time barred by 998 days. The application seeking condonation of delay has given very cryptic and vague reasons for explaining the delay. In para 3 of the application, it has been stated that on account of inadvertent mistake on the part of their Clerk Mr. Om Prakash Sharma, the appeal could not be filed within the prescribed period of limitation. The papers of the appeal were handed over to the Clerk, but he forgot to handover the same to the counsel at Jaipur for preparation of appeal memo and after several (2 of 2) [ITA-175/2018] years when enquiry was made from him, he revealed the truth. The Clerk on specific interrogation felt sorry and sworn his affidavit admitting to his mistake. The affidavit of the Clerk, which has been prepared in hindi, has been annexed with the application, in para 3 of which, it has been stated that on 30.4.2015, Shri Subhash Agarwal, father of the assessee had instructed him to go to Shri B.V. Meheshwari, who is their Chartered Accountant and obtain copy of the order dated 10.4.2015 passed by the ITAT along with the complete file. In the affidavit, it is stated that Shri Subhash Agarwal has further instructed him that he should handover all the documents along with aforesaid order to their advocate for filing the appeal in the High Court, but he retained the papers at his residence. Owning to certain family problems, he could not entrust the papers to the counsel. After two years when Shri Subhash Agarwal enquired from him, he on refreshing his memory realised that he has committed the mistake and thereafter he has handed over papers to the counsel. The aforementioned reasons are as vague as they could be and cannot be accepted to explain huge delay of 998 days’ in filing the appeal. It cannot constitute sufficient cause within the meaning of Section 5 of the Limitation Act. The application no.1672/2018 for condonation of delay is dismissed. Consequently, the appeal is also dismissed.” 3. On examination, we find that same reasons have been provided in the affidavit filed in support of the application for condonation of delay. 4. For the reasons mentioned in D.B. Income Tax Appeal No.174/2018, this appeal too has to fail; the application for condonation of delay and consequently the appeal are dismissed. (SANJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA),J (S. RAVINDRA BHAT),CJ KAMLESH KUMAR /Nawal Kishore-27 "