Chandrabhan Rajpal vs. Income Tax Department

ITA/73/2018HC Madhya Pradesh05 July 2022Bench: HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE VIVEK RUSIA4 pages

For Petitioner: Nitin Singh BhatiFor Respondent: Veena Mandlik

AI SummaryDismissed

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court dismissed the appeal as time-barred and sans merit. The Court found that the appellant had not explained the delay with cogent reasons, describing the explanation as vague and casual. The Court referred to the Supreme Court's decision in P.K. Ramachandran v. State of Kerala, which held that the law of limitation must be applied with rigor and courts have no power to extend the period of limitation on equitable grounds. The High Court found the discretion exercised by it in condoning delay to be neither proper nor judicious and thus the order condoning the delay could not be sustained. Consequently, the application for condonation of delay was rejected, and the appeal was dismissed as barred by time. The Court also noted that the appellant did not have a prima facie case, as the authorities had rightly found the transaction of a Rs. 5 lac gift to be an unexplained gift due to the donor and donee having bank accounts but the money being withdrawn in cash instead of being transferred directly.

What were the facts?

The assessee, Chandrabhan Rajpal, filed an Income Tax Appeal (ITA) under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961, before the High Court of Madhya Pradesh at Indore. The appeal challenged an order dated 26.07.2016 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Authority, Indore, relating to assessment year 2004-05. The appeal was filed on 04.04.2018, which was 617 days after the impugned order. The assessee also filed an application for condonation of delay, stating that he lost the certified copy of the order and only obtained a fresh copy on 17.02.2020. The Revenue opposed the condonation, highlighting that the appeal was filed without a certified copy and defects were not cured despite opportunities. The High Court had previously dismissed the ITA due to non-compliance, which was later restored via MCC No.3068/2019.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the delay of 617 days in filing the appeal should be condoned, considering the explanation provided by the appellant regarding the loss of the certified copy of the impugned order. Assessee's Contention: The appellant argued that the delay was bonafide, caused by the loss of the certified copy of the impugned order. He stated that he applied for and received a fresh certified copy on 17.02.2020. The appellant contended that he had a good prima facie case and that not condoning the delay would cause irreparable loss. He relied on the principle that justice should be done and that the delay was not intentional. Revenue's Contention: The respondent opposed the condonation of delay, arguing that the appeal was hopelessly time-barred even if treated as filed in 2018. They pointed out that sufficient time was given to cure defects, but the appellant failed to comply. The Revenue emphasized that even after the restoration of the appeal, the certified copy was not filed promptly. They cited the Supreme Court's decision in P.K. Ramachandran v. State of Kerala to argue that the law of limitation must be applied rigorously and that courts cannot extend it on equitable grounds.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 260A

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Before: HONBLE SHRI JUSTICE VIVEK RUSIA & HONBLE SHRI JUSTICE AMAR NATH (KESHARWANI)

- : 1 :- IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH AT INDORE BEFORE HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE VIVEK RUSIA & HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE AMAR NATH (KESHARWANI) HEARD ON THE 20th OF JUNE, 2022 ORDER PASSED ON 5th THE OF JULY, 2022 INCOME TAX APPEAL No. 73 of 2018 Between:- CHANDRABHAN RAJPAL S/O GHANSHYAM DAS RAJPAL, AGED ABOUT 63 YEARS, OCCUPATION:

PROPRIETOR

MEDICAL AGENCY KOTWALI ROAD, UJJAIN (MADHYA PRADESH) .....PETITIONER (NITIN SINGH BHATI, LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE PETITIONER) AND INCOME TAX DEPARTMENT COMMISSIONER AAYAKAR BHAWAN UJJAIN (MADHYA PRADESH) .....RESPONDENTS (VEENA MANDLIK, LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE RESPONDENT) This appeal coming on for order this day, JUSTICE VIVEK RUSIA passed the following: ORDER Appellant has filed a present appeal (ITA)under Section 260 A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 challenging the validity of the order dated 26.07.2016 passed by Income Tax Appellate Authority, - : 2 :- Indore relating to the assessment year 2004-05, whereby appeal has been dismissed. The appeal is barred by 497 days, hence, the appellant has filed an application for condonation of delay. According to the appellant, he lost a certified copy of the impugned order dated 26.07.2016 and despite searching for a considerable long period, he could not find it. He applied for a fresh certified copy of the impugned order, which was delivered to him on 17.02.2020. Although this ITA had been filed in the year 2018 but the certified copy of the impugned order has been filed on 17.02.2020 by the appellant. According to the appellant, the delay is bonafide, hence deserves to be condoned in the interest of justice. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the appellant has a good prima facie case if the delay is not condoned, the appellant would suffer irreparable loss, hence prays for condonation of the delay. Learned counsel for the respondent appearing on an advance copy opposes the aforesaid prayer by submitting that even if the appeal is treated to be filed in the year 2018 without a certified copy but that was also hopelessly time-barred. Sufficient time was given to file the certified copy vide orders dated 18.04.2018 and 18.06.2018, but the defect was not cured. This ITA was dismissed due to non-compliance to the aforesaid two orders, thereafter MCC No.3068/2019 was filed, which came to be allowed on 30.01.2020 and thereafter appellant ought to have filed the certified copy. It is further submitted by the learned counsel that despite the aforesaid restoration of ITA, immediately the certified copy was not filed and finally, it was filed on 17.02.2020 and the period of delay has been - : 3 :- counted by the office of this High Court i.e. 497 days. Even if the period from the date of filing till the filing of the certified copy is not taken into consideration, the appeal itself was filed after a delay of 617 days. The appellant is challenging the validity of the order dated 26.07.2016 by filing an appeal on 04.04.2018 i.e. after 617 days and there is no valid explanation for it. Hence, the same is not liable to be condoned. Heard The contention of the appellant is that he has a good prima facie case. The Dy. Commissioner of Income-tax, Circle-1 (1), Ujjain and ITAT have considered the case of the appellant in detail and did not find genuineness of the transaction of gift. The appellant received a gift of Rs. 5 lac in the name of his daughter and niece on 07.10.2000 by Shri Chetandas Rajpal (NRI) residing in UAE. The said gift was given by way of Demand Draft and the same was presented to Bank at Ujjain and cash was withdrawn. All the authorities have rightly found that it is an unexplained gift on the ground that the donor and donee both have accounts in the bank and despite that the money was not transferred directly from one account to another account. Had there been an intention to send the money by way of the DD as a gift, the same would have been transferred from one account to another account. The resident of Dubai send a DD payable in the State Bank of India, at Ujjain Branch and the same was presented and cash was withdrawn. The authorities have rightly found that the transaction is not genuineness as a gift, therefore, the appellant has no prima facie case for interference in this appeal. - : 4 :- The appellant has not explained the delay by submitting cogent reasons. The explanation is very vague in nature and made in a casual manner. The Apex court in the case of P.K. Ramachandran v. State of Kerala, reported in (1997) 7 SCC 556 has observed as under:- 6.Law of limitation may harshly affect a particular party but it has to be applied with all its rigour when the statute so prescribes and the courts have no power to extend the period of limitation on equitable grounds. The discretion exercised by the High Court was, thus, neither proper nor judicious. The order condoning the delay cannot be sustained. This appeal, therefore, succeeds and the impugned order is set aside. Consequently, the application for condonation of delay filed in the High Court would stand rejected and the miscellaneous first appeal shall stand dismissed as barred by time. No costs. In view of above, the appeal is dismissed as time-barred and also sans merit. (VIVEK RUSIA) (AMAR NATH (KESHARWANI)) JUDGE JUDGE praveen Digitally signed by PRAVEEN NAYAK Date: 2022.07.05 18:36:16 +05'30'

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →