SH PRATEEK AGARWAL vs. ACIT CIRCLE-I KOTA

PDF · subscribers
ITA/174/2018HC RajasthanRJHC02036918201801 July 2019Bench: MOHAMMAD RAFIQ,NARENDRA SINGH DHADDHA2 pages
AI SummaryDismissed

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court held that the reasons provided by the assessee to explain the delay of 998 days were vague and could not constitute sufficient cause within the meaning of Section 5 of the Limitation Act. The court found the explanation of the clerk's mistake and subsequent family problems to be insufficient to justify such a significant delay. Consequently, the application for condonation of delay was dismissed. As the appeal was filed with an inordinate and unexplained delay, the court dismissed the appeal itself. No decision was made on the merits of the original ITAT judgment.

What were the facts?

The assessee, Sh Prateek Agarwal, filed an appeal on 18.5.2018 against a judgment of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) dated 10.4.2015. The appeal was filed with a delay of 998 days. The assessee's application for condonation of delay cited inadvertent mistakes by their clerk, Mr. Om Prakash Sharma. The clerk's affidavit stated that the assessee's father instructed him on 30.4.2015 to collect the ITAT order and file, but he retained the papers due to family problems and only handed them over to the counsel after two years when enquired. The Revenue was represented by ACIT Circle-I, Kota.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the delay of 998 days in filing the appeal is liable to be condoned under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963, based on the reasons provided by the assessee? Assessee's Contention: The assessee argued that the delay was caused by an inadvertent mistake of their clerk, Mr. Om Prakash Sharma, who forgot to hand over the appeal papers to the counsel. The clerk's affidavit detailed instructions received from the assessee's father and personal family problems that led to the delay in filing. The assessee relied on the clerk's admission of mistake and the subsequent handing over of papers to the counsel. 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 5

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR D.B. Income Tax Appeal No. 174/2018 Sh Prateek Agarwal 2-PA-9, Dadabari Extn. Kota ----Appellant Versus ACIT Circle-I, Kota ----Respondent For Appellant(s) : Shri Vikram Singh For Respondent(s) : Smt. Parinitoo Jain HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MOHAMMAD RAFIQ HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NARENDRA SINGH DHADDHA Judgment 01/07/2019 This appeal has been filed on 18.5.2018 against the judgement of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal dated 10.4.2015. The appeal is enormously time barred by 998 days. The application seeking condonation of delay has given very cryptic and vague reasons for explaining the delay. In para 3 of the application, it has been stated that on account of inadvertent mistake on the part of their Clerk Mr. Om Prakash Sharma, the appeal could not be filed within the prescribed period of limitation. The papers of the appeal were handed over to the Clerk, but he forgot to handover the same to the counsel at Jaipur for preparation of appeal memo and after several years when enquiry was made from him, he revealed the truth. The Clerk on specific interrogation felt sorry and sworn his affidavit admitting to his mistake.

(2 of 2) [ITA-174/2018] The affidavit of the Clerk, which has been prepared in hindi, has been annexed with the application, in para 3 of which, it has been stated that on 30.4.2015, Shri Subhash Agarwal, father of the assessee had instructed him to go to Shri B.V. Meheshwari, who is their Chartered Accountant and obtain copy of the order dated 10.4.2015 passed by the ITAT along with the complete file. In the affidavit, it is stated that Shri Subhash Agarwal has further instructed him that he should handover all the documents along with aforesaid order to their advocate for filing the appeal in the High Court, but he retained the papers at his residence. Owning to certain family problems, he could not entrust the papers to the counsel. After two years when Shri Subhash Agarwal enquired from him, he on refreshing his memory realised that he has committed the mistake and thereafter he has handed over papers to the counsel. The aforementioned reasons are as vague as they could be and cannot be accepted to explain huge delay of 998 days’ in filing the appeal. It cannot constitute sufficient cause within the meaning of Section 5 of the Limitation Act. The application no.1672/2018 for condonation of delay is dismissed. Consequently, the appeal is also dismissed. (NARENDRA SINGH DHADDHA),J (MOHAMMAD RAFIQ),J RAVI SHARMA /20

More judgments on Section 5

All 847 judgments and leading authorities on Section 5 →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →