C.I. Builders Private Limited vs. Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax

IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH AT JABALPUR BEFORE HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE SANJEEV SACHDEVA & HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE VINAY SARAF ON THE 2nd OF MAY, 2025 INCOME TAX APPEAL No. 75 of 2024 C.I. BUILDERS PRIVATE LIMITED Versus PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX AND OTHERS Appearance: Shri Ganesh Narayan Purohit, learned Senior Counsel with Ms. Uma Parashar, learned counsel for the petitioner . Shri Harpreet Singh Gupta, learned Standing Counsel for Income Tax (Through Video Conferencing) for the respondent. ORDER Per: Justice Vinay Saraf 1. The instant Income Tax Appeal is preferred under Section 260 A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 impugning the order dated 23.01.2024 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Indore Bench Indore in I.T.A.No.247-248/Indore/2023, whereby the appeals preferred by the appellant assailing the assessment orders of assessment years 2010-2011 and 2012-2013 were dismissed being time barred. 2. Heard Shri G.N. Purohit, learned Senior Counsel with Ms. Uma Parashar and Shri Harpreet Singh Gupta, learned counsel for the respondent on the question of admission. 1 ITA-75-2024 NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:20966 Signed by: PREETI TIWARI Signing time: 09-05-2025 14:45:23 Signature Not Verified

(A) but he failed to respond to various notice of hearing of appeal that resulted into ex parte decision in both the appeals and additions made by the Assessing Officer under various heads of income for both the years were upheld by appellate authority. He further submits that appellant Company issued instructions by handing over necessary documents to Shri Rinva, Advocate to prefer the appeal in time before ITAT, Indore Bench Indore, however, Shri Rinva failed to make necessary compliance and did not submit the appeal in time before ITAT, Indore Bench, Indore and the same were preferred by another counsel belatedly on 03.07.2023 causing the delay of seven years and 104 days in one appeal and six years and 83 days in second case. 5. He further submits that the appeals were not preferred in time due 2 ITA-75-2024 NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:20966 Signed by: PREETI TIWARI Signing time: 09-05-2025 14:45:23 Signature Not Verified

to the mistake committed by Shri Rinva, Advocate and the appeals were filed when the appellant Company engaged new counsel Shri Rakesh K. Mangal. He further submits that the condonation of delay applications were filed before the ITAT on the ground that appellant promptly handed over the documents to the counsel and the professional expert grossly failed to take action for which the appellant Company should not be penalized. He further submits that by the impugned order dated 23.01.2024, ITAT, Indore Bench, Indore refused to condone the delay and consequently dismissed the appeals as time barred. Hence, the present appeal has been preferred. 6. Shri Purohit, learned Senior Advocate vehemently argued that Shri Ashwini Rinva Advocate filed the income tax appeal before the Commissioner of Income Tax, Bhopal, but due to his non appearance, the appeals were decided ex parte and dismissed on 31.12.2015. He further submits that the appeal orders were handed over to Shri Ashwini Rinva, Advocate for filing of the second appeal before the ITAT, Indore Bench, Indore but the same were not filed by his office and therefore, new counsel was engaged in the year 2023, when the appellant Company for the first time came to know that the appeals have not been filed. He further submits that the delay was occurred due to negligence of the professional engaged by the appellant Company and therefore, ITAT has committed error in not condoning the delay. He further submits that during this period of delay of 6-7 years, there was Covid pandemic period. 7. Learned Senior Counsel has relied on the judgment delivered in the matters of Director of Income Tax (International Taxation) Vs. Western 3 ITA-75-2024 NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:20966 Signed by: PREETI TIWARI Signing time: 09-05-2025 14:45:23 Signature Not Verified

Union Financial Services, (2023) 153 taxmann.com 704 (SC), Collector, Land Acquisition, Anantnag Vs. Katiji, AIR 1987 SC 1353, Manoharan Vs. Sivarajan & Ors. (2014) 4 SCC 163 (SC ), Vijay Vishin Meghani Vs. DCIT- Circle-23(2) Mumbai (2017) 398 ITR 250 (Bom ), Mrs. Premalatha Pagaria Vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward 9(2), (2021) 130 taxmann.com 403, Subhkaran & Sons Vs. N.A. Kazi Vs. Income Tax Officer & Ors. (1984) 43 CTR (Bom) 16, Yogendra Ram Tripathi Vs. Deputy Director of Consolidation, Gorakhpur, 2014 STPL 576 (All), wherein it is held by the Apex Court and High Courts that well settled legal principle is that expression 'sufficient cause' should receive liberal consideration so as to advance the cause of justice. The expression 'sufficient cause' as appearing in Section 5 of Limitation Act should receive liberal construction, when the delay is not on account of any dilatory tactics, want of bonafides, deliberate inaction or negligence on the part of the appellant, in order to advance substantial justice. The word 'sufficient cause' for not making the application within the period of limitation should be understood and applied in a reasonable, pragmatic, practical and liberal manner, depending upon the facts and circumstances of the case. 8. By referring the above judgments, learned Senior Counsel submitted that the delay was caused by the professional and his affidavit was also submitted before ITAT, Indore, wherein he accepted that copies of the orders passed by CIT(A) were handed over for filing the second appeal before ITAT but due to ignorance on the part of his office staff, appeals could not be filed and consequently, the delay occurred and the same is the 4 ITA-75-2024 NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:20966 Signed by: PREETI TIWARI Signing time: 09-05-2025 14:45:23 Signature Not Verified

sufficient ground for condonation of delay. He further submits that due to negligence of the professional, the appellant is suffering and for making justice oriented approach from this prospective, there was sufficient cause for condoning the delay occurred in the institution of the appeals. 9. In the matter of Western Union Financial Services Inc. (supra), initially the appeals were filed in time and appeals were lying in defect and later on disposed of. Upon re-filing the appeal by Revenue after delay of 1110, 1117 and 9991 days respectively, the Supreme Court has held that considering the fact that originally the appeals were filed in time and substantial questions of law were raised by the department in the said appeals, the delay ought to have been condoned. In the present matter, the appeals before ITAT were filed after delay of 6-7 years and it is not the case that appeals were lying in defect for long time and thereafter re-filed with the prayer for condonation of delay. Hence, the same is not applicable in the present matter. 10. In the matter of Collector, Land Acquisition, Anantnag (supra) , the appeal preferred by the State of Jammu and Kashmir arising out of a decision enhancing compensation in respect of acquisition of land for public purpose was dismissed as time barred being four days beyond time and under those circumstances, the Supreme Court held that sufficient cause was shown by authorities for not approaching in time and delay ought to have been condoned, whereas in the present matter, the delay was of 6-7 years. Similarly, in the matter of Manoharan (supra), the application for extension of time for payment of court fee was not allowed and consequently, suit was 5 ITA-75-2024 NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:20966 Signed by: PREETI TIWARI Signing time: 09-05-2025 14:45:23 Signature Not Verified

dismissed and appeal preferred against that order was dismissed being barred by limitation and under these circumstances, Supreme Court held that evidence on record established that the appellant could not pay court fee due to financial difficulty, because of which his suit got rejected and therefore, appellant is able to make out a case for extension of time to make the payment of court fee and reasons assigned by the appellant were sufficient. The facts of the present case is entirely different and the said judgment is also not helpful to the appellant. 11. The judgment delivered by the High Court of Bombay in the matter of Vijay Vishin Meghani (supra) was also not helpful to appellant because in that matter, the appeal could not be filed due to wrong advise given by chartered accountant and revenue authorities did not contest affidavit of chartered accountant filed in support of the contentions of assessee. However, in the present matter, revenue has opposed the application filed by appellant before ITAT filed for condonation of delay, therefore, facts of present case are different. Similarly, the judgment delivered by High Court of Karnataka in the matter of Mrs. Premalatha Pagaria (supra), delay was 310 days only and under the circumstances of case, High Court was of the opinion that appellant is able to make out a case for condonation of delay. In the present matter, the delay was of 6-7 years and as per ITAT, appellant could not explain the inordinate delay caused in filing the appeal. 12. The judgment delivered by Bombay High Court in the matter of Shubhakaran & Sons (supra) was passed in light of the facts and 6 ITA-75-2024 NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:20966 Signed by: PREETI TIWARI Signing time: 09-05-2025 14:45:23 Signature Not Verified

circumstances of that case, whereby petitioner was able to make out a case for condonation of delay by offering sufficient reasons, but in the present matter, ITAT was not satisfied with reasons assigned by appellant. The Allahabad High Court in the matter of Yogendra Ram Tripathi (supra) has condoned the delay occurred in filing the restoration application for recall of order causing the delay of three years. The explanation offered by petitioner therein that his sister had fallen ill, who expressed her last will to get her treated at Varanasi and therefore, the petitioner therein for treatment of her sister had gone to Varanasi and ultimately his sister died and in the meantime, the case was dismissed and he could not file the restoration application. The reasons offered in that case was on humanitarian ground, whereas in the present appeal, the case is preferred by a private limited company and therefore, the said judgment is also not helpful to the appellant. 13. Though it is settled position of law that delay occurred in filing the appeal should be considered liberally, but at the same time, it is also settled law that there is no general proposition that mistake of counsel by itself is always a sufficient ground. Every case is required to be considered on the basis of facts and circumstances of the case. In the case at hand, ITAT has considered the reasons offered by appellant caused in filing appeals belatedly, but due to lack of bonafides impugnable to parties seeking condonation of delay, reasons were not found sufficient and consequently, delay was not condoned. ITAT has relied upon the judgment delivered by the Supreme Court in the matter of Manimandir Sewa Nyas Samiti Ramgarh 7 ITA-75-2024 NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:20966 Signed by: PREETI TIWARI Signing time: 09-05-2025 14:45:23 Signature Not Verified

(SANJEEV SACHDEVA) JUDGE (VINAY SARAF) JUDGE Ayodhya Vs. CIT (2020) 119 taxmann.com 3838 SC, wherein the Supreme Court has held that it was otherwise the duty of the assessee to watch the affairs of its firm and delay of few days or months can be considered, but delay of years is required to be examined minutely. ITAT has held that there was gross negligence attitude of the assessee and assessee was aware of the orders passed by CIT (A) even though assessee has not excercised any care to enquire about status of second appeal and tried to shift the responsibility towards his lawyer. The assessee was negligent and his act was lethargic. The findings recorded by ITAT appears to be just and proper. We do not find any infirmity in the finding recorded by ITAT in the impugned order. 14. No substantial question of law is made out in the present case. Consequently we do not find any merit in the appeal. 15. Admission is declined and appeal is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. P/-

8 ITA-75-2024 NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:20966 Signed by: PREETI TIWARI Signing time: 09-05-2025 14:45:23 Signature Not Verified