M/S AVTAR SINGH CONSTRUCTION COMPANY P LTD vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX AND ORS

PDF · subscribers

ITA/215/2015HC Punjab & HaryanaPHHC01109847201506 August 2015Bench: MR. JUSTICE A.B. CHAUDHARI,MR. JUSTICE M.M. AGGARWAL2 pages

AI SummaryRemanded

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court held that the Tribunal's order was perverse. The Tribunal disbelieved the affidavit of the assessee's Managing Director regarding ill health and hospitalization, which caused the delay. The assessee subsequently produced evidence before the High Court to support this contention. The Court noted that the assessee had failed to produce this evidence before the Tribunal, but this should not have been held against the assessee. The affidavit was unchallenged, no reply was filed by the revenue, and the assessee was not called upon to produce evidence. In these circumstances, the High Court concluded that the delay ought to have been condoned. The substantial question of law was answered in favour of the appellant. The impugned order of the Tribunal was set aside, and the assessee's appeal was to be heard on merits.

What were the facts?

The assessee, M/s Avtar Singh Construction Company (P) Ltd., filed an appeal before the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh against an order of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT). The ITAT had dismissed the assessee's appeal on the grounds that it was barred by limitation of 105 days and that the explanation provided in the application for condonation of delay was unsatisfactory. The assessee's appeal to the High Court challenges the ITAT's order. The High Court admitted the appeal on a substantial question of law.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the order of the Tribunal was perverse? (Question of law) Assessee's Contention: The assessee argued that the Tribunal's order was perverse. The delay in filing the appeal before the Tribunal was attributed to the ill health of the Managing Director, which necessitated hospitalization. The assessee produced evidence supporting this claim before the High Court. The assessee contended that the affidavit explaining the delay was never challenged, no reply was filed, and the assessee was not asked to produce further evidence, yet the Tribunal dismissed the appeal. The assessee relied on the principle that in such circumstances, the delay ought to have been condoned. Revenue's Contention: The judgment does not record any specific contentions made by the revenue regarding the perversity of the Tribunal's order or the condonation of delay.

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

ITA-215-2015 Date of decision:- 06.08.2015

M/s Avtar Singh Construction Company (P) Ltd. ...Appellant Versus

Commissioner of Income Tax, Chandigarh and another ...Respondents

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.J. VAZIFDAR, ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE

HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE G.S. SANDHAWALIA

Present: Mr. Vishal Gupta, Advocate,

for the petitioner. * * * * S.J. VAZIFDAR, A.C.J. (ORAL) Issue notice of motion. Service is waived, as Ms. Urvashi Dhugga, learned counsel accepts notice on behalf of the respondents. This is an appeal against the order of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal dated 31.10.2014 dismissing the assessee’s appeal only on the ground that it was barred by limitation of 105 days and that the explanation in support of the application for condonation of delay was not satisfactory. 2. The appeal is admitted on the following substantial question of law:-

Whether the order of the Tribunal was perverse? 3. In view of our finding on this question of law, it is not necessary to consider the other questions raised by the appellant in the appeal. 4. The Tribunal disbelieved the affidavit of the appellant’s Managing Director that the delay was on account of his ill health which in fact even required his being hospitalized. The appellant has produced the evidence in support of this contention before us. The appellant having failed AMODH SHARMA 2015.08.07 10:49 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document chandigarh

ITA-215-2015

to do so before the Tribunal could not have been held against it. The affidavit was never challenged. There was no reply to the same. The appellant was not called upon to produce the evidence. In such circumstances, the delay ought to have been condoned. 5. The question of law, therefore, is answered in favour of the appellant. 6. The impugned order is set aside. 7. The appellant’s appeal be heard on merits.

(S.J. VAZIFDAR) ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE

(G.S. SANDHAWALIA)

JUDGE 06.08.2015 Amodh AMODH SHARMA 2015.08.07 10:49 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document chandigarh

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →