DEVINDER SINGH PANNU vs. INCOMER TAX OFFICER WARD 1(3) CHANDIGARH

PDF · subscribers
ITA/86/2020HC Punjab & HaryanaPHHC01055315202027 July 2020Author: MR JUSTICE RAKESH KUMAR JAIN,MR. JUSTICE ASHOK KUMAR VERMA2 pages
AI SummaryDismissed

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court held that the appellant possessed a statutory remedy to file an application for the restoration of the appeal that was dismissed for non-prosecution. The Court noted that Rule 24 of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal Rules, 1963, does not prescribe a period of limitation for approaching the Tribunal for restoration. Consequently, the High Court found the present appeal to be misconceived. The appeal was dismissed as such, but the appellant was granted liberty to file an application for restoration of the appeal before the ITAT, if so advised. The High Court did not decide the merits of the original appeal before the ITAT.

What were the facts?

The appellant, Devinder Singh Pannu, filed an appeal before the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The appeal challenged an order dated 09.01.2017 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT), Chandigarh. The ITAT had dismissed the appellant's appeal in default. The appellant contended that the ITAT was required to decide the appeal on merits as per Rule 24 of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal Rules, 1963. The respondent, the Income Tax Officer, Ward 1(3), Chandigarh, argued that the appellant had a remedy to approach the ITAT for restoration of the appeal dismissed for non-prosecution.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal was justified in dismissing the appeal filed by the appellant in default, instead of deciding it on merits as per Rule 24 of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal Rules, 1963? (Question of law and fact, concerning Rule 24 of ITAT Rules, 1963). Assessee's Contentions: The appellant argued that the ITAT ought to have decided the appeal on merits, citing the Division Bench order of the Delhi High Court in "Om Prakash Sangwan Vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward – 33(4), New Delhi." [2018] 94 taxmann.com 394 (Delhi). Revenue's Contentions: The respondent submitted that the appellant had an alternative remedy to approach the ITAT for restoration of the appeal dismissed for non-prosecution, referencing the same Delhi High Court judgment which relegated the appellant in that case to avail the restoration remedy.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 260A

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

107

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

ITA No. 86 of 2010 (O&M) Date of Decision: 27.07.2020 ….Respondent

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAKESH KUMAR JAIN.

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK KUMAR VERMA

Present: Ms. Munisha Gandhi, Senior Advocate with

Mr. Viraj Gandhi, Advocate,

for the appellant.

***

RAKESH KUMAR JAIN, J. (Oral)

The appellant has preferred this appeal under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short “the Act”) for setting aside the order dated 09.01.2017 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Chandigarh in ITA No. 322/CHD/2016 whereby the appeal filed by the appellant was dismissed in default though as per Rule 24 of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal Rules, 1963 (for short “the Rules”), the appellate authority was required to decide the appeal on merits.

In support of her contentions, counsel for the appellant has relied upon an order passed by the Division Bench of the Delhi High Court in the case of “Om Prakash Sangwan Vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward – 33(4), New Delhi.” [2018] 94 taxmann.com 394 (Delhi).

Notice of motion. SURESH KUMAR 2020.07.29 12:28 I agree to specified portions of this document

ITA No. 86 of 2020 (O&M) At this stage, Mr. Yogesh Putney, Advocate has accepted notice on behalf of the respondent and submitted that the appellant has a remedy in view of Rule 24 proviso to approach the Tribunal for restoration of the appeal which was dismissed for non-prosecution. He also referred to the judgment relied upon by the appellant and submitted that in the said case, the Delhi High Court has relegated the then appellant to avail his remedy of filing an application to the Tribunal for the purpose of restoration of the appeal.

We have heard counsel for the parties and after perusing the available record are of the considered opinion that the appellant has the statutory remedy of filing an application for restoration of appeal which was dismissed for non-prosecution and in view of Rule 24 of the Rules, there is no period of limitation prescribed within which the aggrieved party can approach the Tribunal for the purpose of restoration.

In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances, present appeal has been found misconceived and the same is hereby dismissed as such but the appellant is granted liberty to file an application, if so advised, for restoration of the appeal which has been dismissed in default by the impugned order dated 09.01.2017. [ RAKESH KUMAR JAIN]

JUDGE

July 27, 2020

[ ASHOK KUMAR VERMA] Ess Kay

JUDGE

Whether speaking / reasoned :

Yes / No

Whether Reportable

:

Yes / No SURESH KUMAR 2020.07.29 12:28 I agree to specified portions of this document

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →