SHREE SHIVAM VENTURES LTD., V. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

TAXC/148/2024

AI Insights

The case involves Shree Shivam Ventures Ltd., the appellant, who appealed against the order of the Commissioner of Income-Tax (Appeals) which had dismissed their earlier appeal. The dismissal was due to a delay of 161 days in filing the appeal, which the ITAT did not condone. The appellant argued that the delay was unintentional and due to their lack of awareness of the dismissal order, which was only discovered during a subsequent tax filing. The High Court, referencing a Supreme Court decision, adopted a justice-oriented approach and condoned the delay, allowing the appeal to proceed on its merits.

• Counselvise Citation: [2025] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 746588 (HC-CHHATTISGARH)
• Appeal Type: Others
• Pronouncement Date: 16-04-2025
• Assessment Year: misc
• Other Referred Cases: Vidya Shankar Jaiswal v. The Income-Tax Officer, Ward-2, Ambikapur, Navodit Samaj Sevi Sanstha v. ITO
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act, 1961
• Result in Favour of: Others
• Court: HIGH COURT
• Department Lawyers: AJAY KUMRANI
• Assessee Lawyers: RAJESHWARA RAO
• Keywords: Condonation of delay; Income Tax; ITAT; Sufficient cause
• Section: 260A

Judgement Text

"1 TAXC No. 148 of 2024 2025:CGHC:17416-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR TAXC No. 148 of 2024 [Arising out of order dated 19.02.2024 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Raipur Bench, Raipur in ITA No.204/RPR/2022] Shree Shivam Ventures Ltd., Santarabadi Station Road, Durg 490020, Chhattisgarh, PAN: AAJCS3183J. ... Appellant versus The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax-2(1) Bhilai District Durg, Chhattisgarh. ... Respondent For Appellant :- Mr. Rajeshwara Rao, Advocate. For Respondent :- Mr. Ajay Kumrani, Advocate. Division Bench Hon'ble Shri Justice Sanjay K. Agrawal & Hon'ble Shri Justice Deepak Kumar Tiwari Judgment On Board (16.04.2025) Sanjay K. Agrawal, J 1. This tax appeal preferred under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for brevity “the Act, 1961) was admitted for hearing by formulating the following substantial question of law:- ANKIT KUMAR SINGH Digitally signed by ANKIT KUMAR SINGH Date: 2025.04.17 17:02:55 +0530 2 TAXC No. 148 of 2024 “Whether the ITAT is justified in dismissing the appeal preferred by the appellant by holding that sufficient cause has not been shown for delay of 161 days by recording a finding which is perverse to the record? ” 2. The assessee/appellant herein preferred an appeal before the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Raipur (for short ITAT) against the order dated 21.03.2022 passed by the CIT (Appeals) along with the application for condonation of delay of 161 days in filing the appeal supported by the affidavit. The ITAT by its order dated 19.02.2024 dismissed the appeal of the assessee/appellant herein holding that no sufficient cause has been shown by the appellant for delay in filing the appeal, against which this appeal has been preferred. 3. Mr. S. Rajeshwara Rao, learned counsel for the appellant, would submit that the Commissioner of Income-Tax (Appeals) had dismissed the appeal vide its order dated 21.03.2022 and uploaded the order on ITBA portal about which the appellant was not aware and he came to know about this development while filing Tax Audit Report for assessement year 2022-23 and, therefore, he could not preferr an appeal right in time and due to which delay occurred. He would also submit that the delay, which was occurred while filing the appeal before 3 TAXC No. 148 of 2024 the ITAT , has been explained by the appellant in the application for condonation of dealy along with the affidavit and even the Revenue did not file any counter-affidavit controverting the statement made by the assessee/appellant in the application. Therefore, the impugned order is liable to be set aside and the delay be condoned as the sufficient cause has been shown by the appellant for condoning the delay in filing the appeal before the ITAT . In support of his submission, he relied upon the decision of the Supreme Court in the matter of Vidya Shankar Jaiswal v. The Income-Tax Officer, Ward-2, Ambikapur 1 and also upon the judgment of this Court delivered in the matter of Navodit Samaj Sevi Sanstha v. ITO 2 . 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. 1 Special Leave Petition (Civil) Nos.26310-26311/2024; decided on 31.01.2025 2 Tax Case No.225 of 2024, decided on 09.12.2024. 4 TAXC No. 148 of 2024 6. Admittedly, there is a delay of 161 days in filing the appeal before the ITAT and for which the assessee/appellant has assigned the reason that the Commissioner of Income-Tax (Appeals) had dismissed the appeal vide its order dated 21.03.2022 and uploaded the order on ITBA portal about which the appellant was not aware and he came to know about this development while filing Tax Audit Report for assessement year 2022-23 and, therefore, he could not prefer an appeal right in time and as soon as the appellant came to know about the order, the appeal was preferred. 7. The Supreme Court vide its Order dated 31.01.2025 passed 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. 8. In view of above and also for the reason shown by the assessee/appellant herein coupled with the fact that though the application of the appellant was supported by the affidavit, but the Revenue did not file any counter-affidavit 5 TAXC No. 148 of 2024 controverting the reason assigned by the assessee and, as such, the delay of 161 days occurred in filing the apeal remained uncontroverted and also for the reason that the assessee was not aware of order passed by the Commissioner of Income-Tax (Appeals) as it was only uploaded on ITBA portal, therefore, the sufficient cause has been show by the assessee/appellant for the delay of 161 days occurred in filing the appeal. Accordingly, the delay of 161 days occurred in filing the appeal deserves to be and is hereby condoned. 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 appeal stands allowed to the extent indicated herein- above, leaving the parties to bear their own costs. Sd/- Sd/- (Sanjay K. Agrawal) (Deepak Kumar Tiwari) Judge Judge Ankit "