Deceased Rambhau Asai Thru. Lrs. Smt. Urmila Asai vs. Commissioner Of Income Tax Dr

ITA/214/2017HC Madhya Pradesh16 January 2018Bench: HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE P.K. JAISWAL4 pages

For Petitioner: Ashish Goyal

AI SummaryAllowed

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court condoned the delay in filing the appeals, finding the reasons provided by the assessees to be sufficient. The Court admitted the appeals on the substantial question of law regarding the ITAT's justification in dismissing the appeals despite the payment of differential court fees. With the consent of both parties, the appeals were heard finally. The Court held that once the defect (short payment of court fees) was rectified, the matter should have been decided on its merits. The Court answered the question in favor of the assessees, setting aside the impugned ITAT order. The High Court directed the ITAT to verify the payment of deficit court fees made on August 11, 2016, and thereafter decide the assessees' appeals on merit. The appeals were allowed and disposed of.

What were the facts?

The appeals were filed by the assessees against an order of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) dated August 16, 2016. The ITAT had dismissed the assessees' appeals due to short payment of court fees and non-appearance of their counsel. The appeals were filed with a significant delay, ranging from 265 to 289 days. The assessees' counsel argued that their previous counsel failed to properly inform them about the proceedings, and they were only informed after the deficit court fees were paid on August 11, 2016. This payment was not communicated to the ITAT, leading to the dismissal. The High Court considered applications for condonation of delay.

What were the issues?

1. Whether, on the facts and circumstances of the case, the learned ITAT was justified in law in dismissing the appeals when the appellants had already rectified the defect by paying the differential court fees and the relevant challans were on record of the learned ITAT? (Question of law and fact, concerning the dismissal of appeals by ITAT). Assessee's Contentions: The assessees argued that their previous counsel did not properly inform them about the proceedings before the ITAT. They were informed about the deficit court fees only after paying them on August 11, 2016, and this payment was not communicated to the ITAT. Their former authorized representative also failed to appear or inform the ITAT about the payment. Due to these circumstances and the subsequent failure of the authorized representative to file a restoration application within the liberty granted by the ITAT, the assessees could not file the present appeals in time. They relied on the fact that the defect was rectified before the dismissal and that the ITAT did not verify the payment of deficit court fees. Revenue's Contentions: No specific contentions were recorded for the revenue in the judgment.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 260A

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

1 ITA Nos. 209, 213, 214 and 215 of 2017 HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH : BENCH AT INDORE I. T. A. No.209 of 2017 I. T. A. No.213 of 2017 I. T. A. No.214 of 2017 I. T. A. No.215 of 2017 Indore, Dated:- 16/01/2018 Shri Ashish Goyal, learned Counsel for the appellants. Ms. Veena Mandlik, learned Counsel for the respondents. Heard on I.A. Nos.14176, 15489, 15493 and 15499 of 2017, applications for condonation of delay. All these appeals are barred by 265 days, 289 days, 289 days and 289 days respectively. 2. These appeals under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 has been filed against the order dated 16.8.2016, by which learned I.T.A.T. dismissed these appeals on account of short payment of Court fees so also on the ground that no one gave appearance on behalf of assessees and, therefore, the same has been dismissed for want of prosecution. 3. Learned Counsel for the appellants has submitted that earlier Counsel, who was appearing before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) and who was to appear before the learned I.T.A.T. has not properly informed the appellants against the course of action 2 ITA Nos. 209, 213, 214 and 215 of 2017 which is to be taken, the assessees were informed only after the deficit Court fees has been paid on 11.8.2016 and the same also was not informed to the Tribunal and, therefore, the appeals were dismissed. 4. On due consideration of the reasons assigned in the applications so also the fact that much prior to the date of dismissal of appeals deficit Court fees have been paid on 11.8.2016, we are of the view that the cause shown by the appellants are sufficient to condone the delay in filing these appeals. 5. Accordingly delay of 265 days, 289 days, 289 days and 289 days in each appeals are hereby condoned by allowing the aforesaid I.A. Nos.14176, 15489, 15493 and 15499 of 2017. 6. Also heard on the question of admission. 7. The appeals are admitted on the following substantial question of law:- (i) Whether on facts and circumstances of the case the learned ITAT was justified in law in dismissing the appeals, when the appellants had already rectified the defect by paying the differential challan fees and the relevant challans were on record of learned ITAT?

With the consent of parties, these appeals are finally heard. 9. Shri Ashish Goyal, learned Counsel for the appellants has submitted that though an intimation regarding listing of matters on 16.8.2016 before the 3 ITA Nos. 209, 213, 214 and 215 of 2017 learned I.T.A.T. was given by the Department to the learned Authorized Representative of the assessees on phone and, therefore, he could not mark his presence nor intimated the assessees or pointed out to the learned I.T.A.T. that deficit Court fees has already been paid on 11.8.2016. The same has also not been verified by the learned Tribunal from the office regarding payment of deficit Court fees. Due to non-payment of deficit Court fees as well as on the ground that no one gave appearance on behalf of the appellants, the appeals are dismissed and liberty to the assessees to pay the short fees after receipt of the order within two months and also permitted him to file an application for restoration of appeals. 10. As the earlier authorized representative did not inform the present appellants about the aforesaid facts and events nor he filed any application for restoration within a period of two months as per liberty granted by the I.T.A.T., they could not file the appeals in time and only after change of Counsel the present appeals have been filed. 11. On due consideration of the aforesaid so also the fact that on the first date of hearing, a telephonic intimation was given to the appellants’ authorized representative and thereafter on the same day appeals were dismissed, we are of the view that once the defect has been rectified then the matter has to be decided on 4 ITA Nos. 209, 213, 214 and 215 of 2017 merit in accordance with law. 12. Considering the aforesaid, we answer the question in favour of the appellants by setting aside the impugned order with a direction to the learned I.T.A.T. to verify about the deficit court fees which was paid on 11.8.2016 and thereafter decide the appeals of the assessees on merit in accordance with law. 13. With the aforesaid, I.T.A. Nos.209, 213, 214 and 215 of 2017 are allowed and disposed of. Copy of this order be kept in other connected matters also.

(P. K. Jaiswal) (Virender Singh) Judge Judge pp/ Pankaj Pandey Digitally signed by Pankaj Pandey DN: c=IN, o=High Court of Madhya Pradesh, ou=Administration, postalCode=452001, st=Madhya Pradesh, 2.5.4.20=5467164f5a336c7377a6484512779 597a0f79163d36b5126b339e1055a2ce3fb, cn=Pankaj Pandey Date: 2018.01.17 10:25:06 +05'30'

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →