M/S SKY ALLOYS AND POWER LIMITED (EARLIER KNOWN AS M/S SKY ALLOYS AND POWER PRIVATE LIMITED) V. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

TAXC/147/2024

AI Insights

The case involves M/s Sky Alloys And Power Limited, which appealed against the decision of the ITAT that dismissed their appeal on the grounds of limitation. The appellant argued that the delay was due to the COVID-19 pandemic and internal mismanagement, including the failure of an accountant to file the appeal on time despite the payment of the requisite challan. The respondents contested the appellant's claims, highlighting the lack of documentary evidence regarding the accountant's employment. The High Court, after considering the circumstances and the principles favoring the adjudication of cases on merits rather than technicalities, decided in favor of the appellant.

• Counselvise Citation: [2024] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 672539 (HC-CHHATTISGARH)
• Appeal Type: Others
• Pronouncement Date: 07-08-2024
• Assessment Year: misc
• Result in Favour of: Others
• Court: HIGH COURT
• Department Lawyers: AJAY KUMRANI
• Assessee Lawyers: VED JAIN; PRAVEEN TULSYAN; KARAN BAHARANI; NISHCHAY KANTOOR; SONIYA DODEJA
• Keywords: Bona fide; Condonation of delay; Limitation; Technical ground; COVID intervention

Judgement Text

"1 2024:CGHC:29472- DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR TAXC No. 147 of 2024 1. M/s Sky Alloys And Power Limited (Earlier Known As M/s Sky Alloys And Power Private Limited) House No. 15/1049, Plot No. 16, Opp. Cg Gramin Bank,choubey Colony, Raipur (C.G.) Through Its Director Shri Ravi Singhal S/o Shri Kunj Bihari Singhal. ... Appellant versus 1. Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax Central Circle-1, Raipur Aayakar Bhawan, Civil Lines, Raipur (C.G.) Email: Raipur. [e-mail]. 2. Income Tax Officer Ward-2(1), Aayakar Bhawan, Central Revenue Building, Civil Lines, Raipur 492001 ..Respondents For Appellant : Mr. Ved Jain, Advocate through, V.C. Praveen K. Tulsyan, Mr. Karan K. Baharani, Mr. Nishchay Kantoor with Ms. Soniya Dodeja, Advocates. For Respondents : Mr. Ajay Kumrani, Advocate on behalf of Mr. Amit Chaudhari, Advocate. Division Bench Hon’ble Shri Justice Goutam Bhaduri J. Hon’ble Shri Justice Radhakishan Agrawal, J. Judgment on Board 07.08.2024 Per, Goutam Bhaduri Judge Heard. 2 1. The present appeal is preferred against the order of ITAT dated 21.02.2024. 2. This appeal was preferred against the order of the CIT appeals dated 16.08.2021. According to the appellant, the appeal was filed on 05.09.2022 and otherwise the appeal in normal course should have been filed by 15.10.2021, however, because of the COVID intervention and the notification issued by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, the time was extended up till 30.05.2022. Thereafter, the appeal was filed with a delay of 98 days. It is further submitted that the bona fides of the appellant can be noticed from the fact that the challan was paid for filing the appeal on 10th November, 2021 and the entire matter was entrusted with one C.R. Sahu, who was accountant and he was in hold of the matter, but he did not perform his duty and because of certain other irregularities his services were dispensed with and at the time of leaving the office, abruptly he left and did not inform that the appeal has not been filed. It is further submitted that because of the fact that some raid was conducted in the premises of the appellant, the appellant got involved in such activities, consequently, the issue of filing appeal for which the challan was already paid and filing had slipped out, therefore, there is a bona fide on the part of the appellant and delay in filing appeal before ITAT should have been condoned. It is stated that the learned Appellate Tribunal on the threshold has dismissed the appeal on the ground of limitation without appreciating cause which was slated before the Tribunal. 3. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties, it appears that the following question of law is involved as to :- 3 (i) whether the the dismissal of the appeal at the threshold on the ground of limitation in the facts and circumstances was justified. 4. Learned counsel for the respondent opposes the argument and submits that there is no document on record to show that S.R. Sahu was working as Accountant with the appellant company and at least, they should have placed the document before the Tribunal, therefore, the bona fide is missing. 5. We went through the application for condonation of delay. The categorical submission has been made in the application for condonation of delay that the entire matter to file the appeal was in hold of the then Accountant of S.R. Sahu. whose services were terminated in end of November last 2021. It is not in dispute that the appeal which should have been filed within 60 days had expired on 15.10.2021. Since the COVID intervened, the appeal period in all the cases were extended by the Hon'ble Supreme Court up till 30.05.2022 and subsequently, the appeal was filed on 05.09.2022. The bona fide of the appellant can be assumed from the fact that the challan for filing the appeal was paid on 10.11.2021. Consequently, the intention on the part of the appellant can be gathered from the fact that some of the employees who was entrusted in the job to file the appeal, has failed to perform his duty. Eventually, his services were terminated. One of the reason has also been assigned that some raid was conducted on the premises of the appellant. Therefore, it can be inferred that because of such raid the entire focus might have been diverted that of assessee, coupled with the fact that the duty of filing the appeal since 4 was entrusted to accountant, by the company and on account of non filing of the appeal, the services of concerned employee was terminated. In such case, the non filing of the appeal within time appears to be reasonable. Even otherwise, in condonation of delay, the Courts would lean more in favour of deciding of the appeal on merit instead of side lining the hearing of cases on merits on technical ground of the limitation. 6. In our considered opinion, the delay appears to be reasonable. Accordingly, the appeal is allowed. The question of law is in favour of the appellant. The order passed by the learned Appellate Tribunal dated 21.02.2021 (A1) is set aside and the appeal is remitted back to the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal for fresh adjudication on merits. Sd/- Sd/- (Goutam Bhaduri) (Radhakishan Agrawal) JUDGE JUDGE Vaibhav "