JANAK BHOGILAL RAJA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER AND ORS

PDF · subscribers
WP/2446/2021HC BombayHCBM01020130202104 December 2021Author: HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE K.R. SHRIRAM,HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE AMIT BORKAR2 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court was satisfied that the petitioner was prevented by a sufficient cause from appearing for the hearing. Consequently, the order dated March 30, 2021, passed by the PCIT was quashed and set aside. The Court directed the PCIT to consider the condonation of delay application filed by the petitioner on its own merits. The PCIT was further directed to pass appropriate orders on both the condonation of delay application and the application filed under Section 264 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, in accordance with the law. The Court explicitly clarified that no observations were made on the merits of the matter, and all rights and contentions of the parties were kept open. The principle established is that if a party can demonstrate a genuine and unavoidable impediment, such as a severe illness or quarantine impacting their representative, the authorities should consider condoning the delay and hearing the matter on merits.

What were the facts?

The petitioner, Janak Bhogilal Raja, is aggrieved by an order dated March 30, 2021, passed by the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax (PCIT), Thane-1, under Section 264 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The petitioner was issued a notice on March 5, 2021, for a hearing on March 9, 2021. The petitioner did not attend this hearing, leading to the impugned order. The petitioner's counsel contended that the Chartered Accountant, responsible for attending the hearing, had requested an adjournment on March 8, 2021, to March 23, 2021. This request was made because the Chartered Accountant was quarantined in Rajkot with COVID-19 symptoms and subsequently tested positive on March 27, 2021.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the petitioner was prevented by sufficient cause from appearing before the PCIT on the scheduled hearing date, thereby warranting condonation of delay in filing the application under Section 264 of the Income Tax Act, 1961? Assessee's Contention: The petitioner argued that the absence from the hearing was due to a sufficient cause, namely the quarantine and subsequent COVID-19 diagnosis of their Chartered Accountant, who was engaged to represent the petitioner. An adjournment request was made prior to the hearing date. Revenue's Contention: The judgment does not record any specific contentions from the revenue regarding the sufficiency of the cause for absence or the adjournment request.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 264

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

1/2 917.WP-2446-2021.doc IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.2446 OF 2021 Janak Bhogilal Raja ….Petitioner V/s. Income Tax Officer, Ward – 2 (1), Thane and Ors.

….Respondents ---- Mr. K. Gopal i/b. Ms. Neha Paranjpe for petitioner. Mr. Sham V. Walve for respodents-Revenue. ---- CORAM : K.R. SHRIRAM & AMIT B. BORKAR, JJ.

DATED : 4th DECEMBER 2021 P.C. : 1 Petitioner is primarily aggrieved by an order dated 30th March 2021 passed by the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax (PCIT), Thane 1 under Section 264 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (the said Act). Petitioner was given notice on 5th March 2021 to appear on 9th March 2021 before PCIT. Petitioner did not attend and the order impugned in the petition came to be passed on 30th March 2021. 2 Mr. Gopal, counsel for petitioner states that petitioner's Chartered Accountant, who was engaged to attend to the matter, had made a request for an adjournment on 8th March 2021 requesting the hearing be stood over to 23rd March 2021. A snapshot of the e-proceeding seeking adjournment from the website of the Income Tax Department is annexed at Exhibit "O" to the petition. It is petitioner's case that the Chartered Accountant, who was to attend to the matter, was quarantined at his Gauri Gaekwad GAURI AMIT GAEKWAD GAURI AMIT GAEKWAD Date: 2021.12.06 14:50:47 +0530

2/2 917.WP-2446-2021.doc residence in Rajkot with symptoms for COVID 19 and was later tested positive on 27th March 2021. There are averments to this effect in the petition. 3 We are satisfied that petitioner was, therefore, prevented by sufficient cause in not appearing for the hearing. 4 In the circumstances, the order dated 30th March 2021 is hereby quashed and set aside. The PCIT shall consider the condonation of delay application, which is already filed by petitioner, on its own merits and he may pass such order as he deems fit on the condonation of delay application as well as the application filed under Section 264 of the said Act in accordance with law. 5 We clarify that we have not made any observations on the merits of the matter. All rights and contentions of the parties are kept open. 6 Petition disposed accordingly. (AMIT B. BORKAR, J.) (K.R. SHRIRAM, J.) Gauri Gaekwad

More judgments on Section 264

All 338 judgments and leading authorities on Section 264 →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →