M/S PARAS RICE MILLS vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, KARNAL

PDF · subscribers
ITA/657/2009HC Punjab & HaryanaPHHC01084788200921 April 2010Author: MR. JUSTICE M.M. KUMAR,MR. JUSTICE JITENDRA CHAUHAN2 pages
AI SummaryAllowed

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court held that the Tribunal erred in refusing to condone the delay of 242 days. The Court found that the assessee had acted in a bona fide belief that the appeal was competent before the CIT(A), Karnal, and this pursuit of remedy before the wrong forum was the cause of the delay. The Court was satisfied that there was a bona fide mistake on the part of the assessee. The Court emphasized that the right of one appeal is a prevalent principle. Therefore, the High Court set aside the order of the Tribunal and directed it to entertain the appeal and decide it on merits. The issue of the merits of the original appeal was expressly left undecided as the Tribunal was directed to hear it.

What were the facts?

The assessee, M/s Paras Rice Mills, filed an appeal against an order passed by the Assessing Officer under Section 144 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The assessee mistakenly filed this appeal before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) [CIT(A)], Karnal, who rejected it for lack of jurisdiction. Subsequently, the assessee filed an appeal before the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) on August 18, 2007. However, this appeal was delayed by 242 days, for which the assessee filed an application for condonation of delay. The ITAT dismissed this application on May 25, 2009, refusing to condone the delay. The assessee then filed an appeal before the High Court of Punjab and Haryana against the ITAT's order.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the Tribunal was justified in refusing to condone the delay of 242 days in filing the appeal before it, considering the assessee had bona fide pursued the remedy before the CIT(A) which lacked jurisdiction? (Question of law and fact, relying on Section 253(5) of the Income Tax Act, 1961). Assessee's Contention: The assessee argued that the delay was caused by a bona fide mistake in pursuing the appeal before the wrong forum (CIT(A)). They contended that the Tribunal should have condoned the delay as the assessee acted without any ill intention. The principle of the right of one appeal was also invoked. Revenue's Contention: The judgment records no specific arguments from the revenue regarding the condonation of delay.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 260-A,Section 144,Section 253,Section 253(5)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH.

Date of Decision: April 21, 2010 M/s Paras Rice Mills, Kurukshetra …Appellant Versus Commissioner of Income Tax, Karnal and another …Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.M. KUMAR HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE JITENDRA CHAUHAN Present: Mr. Avneesh Jhingan, Advocate, for the appellant. Mr. Yogesh Putney, Advocate, for the respondents.

1.

To be referred to the Reporters or not?

2.

Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? M.M. KUMAR, J. The instant appeal filed under Section 260-A of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (for brevity, ‘the Act’) is directed against order dated 25.5.2009 (A-5), passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Chandigarh Bench (B), Chandigarh (for brevity, ‘the Tribunal’), dismissing the application filed by the appellant seeking condonation of delay of 242 days. According to the averments made in the application, the appellant had mistakenly availed the remedy of appeal before the Regular Appellate Authority i.e. CIT (A) Karnal where it had filed an appeal on 21.11.2006 against the order dated 31.10.2006 passed by the Assessing Officer under Section 144 of the Act. The CIT (A) rejected the appeal for lack of juri iction, vide order dated 20.6.2007. Thereafter the appeal was preferred under Section 253 of the Act before the Tribunal on 18.8.2007. For the period the appeal was pending before the CIT (A) Karnal, delay of 242 days had occurred for which an application for condonation of delay was filed. The Tribunal has been clothed with the power to condone the delay under Section 253(5) of the Act, if sufficient cause is shown for not presenting the appeal within the period prescribed. The basis of the rejection of the appeal by refusing to condone the delay is that there is no bona fide reason disclosed for condonation of delay. However, no satisfaction with regard to the plea raised by the appellant in its application has been recorded. Keeping in view the fact that the appellant was pursuing the remedy at a wrong forum in a bona fide belief that the appeal was competent before the CIT (A) Karnal, the Tribunal should have condoned the delay. It is evident that the aforesaid course was adopted by the appellant without any ill intention to avail any benefit. The delay in filing the appeal before the Tribunal for the period spent on pursuing the remedy before a wrong forum should have been condoned by the Tribunal. Accordingly, we record the satisfaction that there was a bona fide mistake in pursuing remedy before the CIT (A) Karnal, which has caused the delay in filing the appeal before the Tribunal to the extent of 242 days. Even otherwise, right of one appeal is the principle prevalent in all juri ictions. Therefore, the instant appeal is allowed. The order dated 25.5.2009 (A-5) passed by the Tribunal is set aside and a direction is issued to the Tribunal to entertain

the appeal and decide the same on merit. (M.M. KUMAR) JUDGE (JITENDRA CHAUHAN) April 21, 2010 JUDGE Pkapoor 2

More judgments on Section 260-A

All 2,570 judgments and leading authorities on Section 260-A →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →