RIJWAN vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER

ITA/3/2020HC Punjab & HaryanaPHHC01105942201923 September 2026Author: MR. JUSTICE SUNISH BINDLISH,MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK SIBAL10 pages
AI SummaryDismissed

What were the facts?

The assessee, proprietor of M/s Malik Dairy & Ice, filed an income tax return for Assessment Year 2014-15. The Assessing Officer (AO) rejected the assessee's books of account under Section 145(3) read with Section 144 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, due to non-compliance with statutory notices and failure to produce supporting documents. A best-judgment assessment was framed, resulting in an addition of Rs. 33,10,863/-. The assessee appealed to the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) [CIT(A)] on 22.02.2018, 441 days after the assessment order dated 07.12.2016. The delay was attributed to the tax consultant's mother's demise and subsequent personal ailments. The CIT(A) declined to condone the delay, and the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) upheld this decision.

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court held that the concurrent findings of the CIT(A) and the Tribunal that the appellant failed to show sufficient cause for the delay were correct and did not warrant interference. The explanation provided by the assessee accounted for the period until the counsel resumed office on 15.03.2017, but offered no substantiation for the subsequent nearly eleven-month period of alleged illness until the appeal was filed on 22.02.2018. No medical records or other supporting material were produced. The Court noted the assessee's own lack of cooperation at the assessment stage, which reflected on the assessee himself and not solely on the counsel. The reliance on Rafiq v. Munshi Lal was distinguished, as in that case, the party had done everything in their power, unlike the present situation where inaction and negligence were evident. The Court concluded that no substantial question of law arose, and the appeal was dismissed.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) was justified in ignoring the fact that the appellant had shown sufficient cause for condonation of delay, turning on Section 249(2) and (3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. Assessee's Contention: The delay was not intentional and should not be attributed to the assessee, as the matter was entrusted to a professional. A litigant should not be deprived of adjudication on merits due to circumstances in the counsel's office. Reliance was placed on "sufficient cause" principles from Collector, Land Acquisition, Anantnag v. Mst. Katiji and N. Balakrishnan v. M. Krishnamurthy. Revenue's Contention: The explanation for the delay was general and unsubstantiated. The prolonged illness of the counsel was not supported by satisfactory material. The assessee did not demonstrate diligence for nearly a year. Concurrent factual findings regarding the absence of sufficient cause do not give rise to a substantial question of law under Section 260-A of the Act.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 260-A,Section 145(3),Section 144,Section 249(2),Section 249(3)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Cause title — parties, addresses and appearances
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH ITA-3-2020 Rijwan ...... Appellant Versus Income Tax Officer, Ward-3(5), Gurgaon ...... Respondent 1. The date when the judgment is reserved 08.09.2026 2. The date when the judgment is pronounced 23.09.2026 3. The date when the judgment is uploaded on the website 23.09.2026 4.

Whether only operative part of the judgment is pronounced or whether the full judgment is pronounced Operative

5.

The delay, if any, of the pronouncement of full judgment, and reasons thereof Not applicable CORAM : HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK SIBAL

HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SUNISH BINDLISH Argued by : Mr. Rishabh Singla, Advocate with Mr. Anirudh Garg, Advocate for the appellant. Mr. Ranvijay Singh, Senior Standing Counsel with Mr. Vidul Kapoor, Junior Standing Counsel, for the respondent-Income Tax Department. SUNISH BINDLISH, J.

1.

The present appeal has been preferred by the appellant/assessee under Section 260-A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for brevity, "the Act"), against the order dated 01.05.2019 (Annexure A-6), passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Delhi Bench "SMC", Delhi (hereinafter referred to as "the Tribunal") in ITA No. 78

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 →