SUKHAMRIT SINGH V. CIT, AMRITSAR & ANR

ITA/72/2012

AI Insights

The case involves Sukhamrit Singh, the appellant, who challenged the assessment order dated 2.7.2007 and the subsequent order dated 21.10.2008 under Section 264 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The appellant had initially filed a return declaring an income and agricultural income, which was later assessed significantly higher by the Assessing Officer. The appellant's subsequent appeals and petitions were either dismissed or withdrawn, leading to the filing of this appeal in the High Court. The court dismissed the appeal on the grounds of non-maintainability and excessive delay.

• Counselvise Citation: [2012] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 768366 (HC-CHANDIGARH)
• Appeal Type: Others
• Pronouncement Date: 12-09-2012
• Assessment Year: misc
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act, 1961, Limitation Act
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: HIGH COURT
• Assessee Lawyers: SHIV KUMAR
• Keywords: Appeal; Assessment Order; Condonation of delay; Income Tax; Revision petition
• Section: 144; 143(2); 264; 260A

Judgement Text

"CM No. 10736-CII of 2012 and ITA No. 72 of 2012 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CM No. 10736-CII of 2012 and ITA No. 72 of 2012 (O&M) Date of Decision: 12.9.2012 Sukhamrit Singh ....Appellant. Versus The Commissioner of Income-Tax, Amritsar and another ...Respondents. CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAY KUMAR MITTAL. HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE G.S. SANDHAWALIA. PRESENT: Mr. Shiv Kumar, Advocate for the appellant. AJAY KUMAR MITTAL, J. 1. The assessee has filed the present appeal under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short “the Act”) impugning assessment order dated 2.7.2007 (Annexure A-1) passed by respondent No.2 and order dated 21.10.2008 (Annexure A-3) passed by respondent No.1 on an application filed by the assessee under Section 264 of the Act. An application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act for condonation of 1069 days' delay in filing the appeal has also been filed. 2. In would be expedient to notice the facts as narrated in the appeal in order to adjudicate the controversy involved herein. The assessee filed his return of income on 31.5.2005 for the assessment year 2005-06 declaring an income of ` 1,57,120/- and agricultural income of ` 80,000/-. The said return was scrutinized and notice under CM No. 10736-CII of 2012 and ITA No. 72 of 2012 -2- Section 143(2) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short “the Act”) was issued to the assessee on 27.10.2006. In pursuance of the notice, Shri Anil Gupta, authorized representative appeared on behalf of the assessee but later on did not appear. The Assessing Officer made an assessment under Section 144 of the Act. The mother of the assessee remained on bed for quite some time due to various ailments and cancer and went in COMA and died on 7.10.2006. Further, the assessee was suffering from multifarious ailments and was not permitted to move from the bed continuously for months together being a heart patient during the period from 8.5.2007. Even the assessee had to look after his two mentally retarded children who were under medical observations. The Assessing Officer vide assessment order dated 2.7.2007 (Annexure A-1) assessed the income of the assessee at ` 25,57,200/-. Aggrieved by the said order, the assessee filed an appeal before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) [hereinafter referred to as “the CIT(A)”] and the same was got dismissed as withdrawn vide order dated 13.7.2008 (Annexure A-2). Thereafter, the assessee filed a revision petition under Section 264 of the Act before respondent No.1 who vide order dated 21.10.2008 (Annexure A-3) partly allowed the revision petition. Still dissatisfied, the assessee approached this Court by way of instant appeal impugning the assessment order (Annexure A-1) and order passed under Section 264 of the Act as noticed hereinbefore. 3. After hearing the learned counsel for the appellant, we do not find any merit in the appeal as well as application for condonation of delay. Firstly, the challenge to the assessment order dated 2.7.2007 (Annexure A-1) after withdrawal of the appeal on 13.7.2008 filed against CM No. 10736-CII of 2012 and ITA No. 72 of 2012 -3- the said order had foreclosed further remedy of appeal even to the Tribunal thereagainst. Furthermore, the order dated 21.10.2008 (Annexure A-3) passed by respondent No.1 under Section 264 of the Act is not an appealable order under the Act. No appeal being competent against the aforesaid order, the present appeal is not maintainable. 4. Even otherwise, there is a colossal delay of 1069 days in filing the appeal. No satisfactory explanation has been furnished. No supporting material has been produced to substantiate the ground taken for condonation of delay. As noticed earlier, the present appeal under Section 260A of the Act itself is not maintainable against orders, Annexures A-1 and A-3. 5. In view of the above, the application for condonation of delay and the appeal, both are dismissed. (AJAY KUMAR MITTAL) JUDGE September 12, 2012 (G.S. SANDHAWALIA) gbs JUDGE "