KRISHAN LAL vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX AAYAKAR BHAWAN KARNAL HARYANA

ITA/279/2016HC Punjab & HaryanaPHHC01110478201609 February 2017Author: MR. JUSTICE SURINDER GUPTA,MRS JUSTICE DAYA CHAUDHARY3 pages
AI SummaryAllowed

What were the facts?

The assessee, Krishan Lal, filed an appeal before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) which was dismissed for being barred by time due to a delay of 127 days. The Assessing Officer had made additions under Section 69 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, based on an Annual Information Report regarding deposits in the assessee's Axis Bank account. The assessee's counsel could not file the appeal in time due to misplacement of records. The Commissioner (Appeals) dismissed the appeal vide order dated 10.12.2015. The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) affirmed this order on 03.05.2016. The assessee then filed an appeal before the High Court against the ITAT's order.

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court held that the authorities below should have decided the appeal on merits rather than dismissing it outright on the ground of delay and laches. The Court found that the assessee had shown a reasonable cause for the delayed filing of the appeal, and the explanation furnished by the assessee regarding not approaching the appellate authority in time appeared plausible. Consequently, the High Court allowed the appeal, setting aside the impugned orders of the Commissioner (Appeals) and the ITAT. The case was remitted back to the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) to decide the appeal on merits after affording an opportunity of hearing to the parties. The operative direction was to list the case before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) on 21.03.2017.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the High Court should condone the delay of 127 days in filing the appeal before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) under Section 260-A of the Income Tax Act, 1961, considering the explanation provided by the assessee and his counsel for the delay. Assessee's Contention: The appellant argued that he was condemned unheard and that the authorities below should have afforded an opportunity of hearing and considered the principles of natural justice and interest of justice before dismissing the appeal on grounds of delay and laches. The assessee claimed a reasonable cause for the delay, attributing it to the misplacement of records by his counsel. Revenue's Contention: The judgment does not record any specific contentions made by the revenue regarding the delay or the merits of the case.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 260-A,Section 69,Section 271(1)(c)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appeal No.279 of 2016 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. Income Tax Appeal No.279 of 2016 Date of Decision: 09.02.2017 Krishan Lal ..Appellant versus Commissioner of Income Tax, Aayakar Bhawan, Karnal, Haryana ..Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE AJAY KUMAR MITTAL HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAMENDRA JAIN Present: Mr. S.K.Mukhi, Advocate, for the appellant. Mr. Yogesh Putney, Advocate, for the respondent. RAMENDRA JAIN, J.

1.

The instant appeal has been filed by the appellant under Section 260-A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 ( hereinafter referred to as “the Act”) for setting aside the order dated 03.5.2016 (Annexure A-3) passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Chandigarh, affirming the order dated 10.12.2015 (Annexure A-2) passed by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-2, Gurgaon, for not condoning the delay of 127 days in filing the appeal, resulting in dismissal of the appeal as not maintainable being barred by time.

2.

Brief facts of the case are that after filing return declaring income at ` 99,750/- and `` 5,05,000/- from agriculture, the Assessing Officer, received Annual Information Report (for short “A

The order continues below.

Read the full judgment

A free account opens 10 full judgments a month. Re-reading one you have already opened does not count again.

Create a free accountSign in

See plans and prices

The summary, the parties, the sections and the citations above are open to everyone and always will be. Only the text of the order and the PDF are metered.

More judgments on Section 260-A

All 2,347 judgments and leading authorities on Section 260-A →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →