HL MALHOTRA AND COMPANY PVT. LTD.

The petition has been heard by way of video conferencing. : (Oral)

On 17th “Whether the Tribunal erred in law in failing to adjudicate upon the admissibility and consider the additional evidence furnished by the appellant under Rule 29 of the ITAT Rules?” December, 2020, this Court had admitted the appeal on the following question of law:-

As learned standing counsel for the respondent, on the last date of hearing, had stated that this Court cannot decide the aforesaid issue without examining the record of the Tribunal in appellant’s statutory appeal being 2020:DHC:3695-DB Page 2 of 10

A perusal of the Tribunal record reveals that the appellant had filed an application for admission of additional evidence in terms of Rule 29 of the Income-Tax (Appellate Tribunal) Rules, 1963 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘ITAT Rules’) on 14 RELEVANT FACTS th January, 2019 after serving a copy of the same on the counsel for the Revenue, i.e., prior to commencement of final hearing before the Tribunal. On 17th January, 2019, the Tribunal concluded its hearing in the said appeal. Thereafter, on 22nd January, 2019, the appellant filed its synopsis/written submissions. On 28th

After the impugned order had been passed by the Tribunal, the appellant preferred an application for rectification dated 8 February, 2019, the Tribunal passed the impugned order without dealing with the application filed by the appellant for admission of additional evidence under Rule 29 of the ITAT rules. th May, 2019 under Section 254(2) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Act’). The said application was heard and reserved for orders on 08th November, 2019. Thereafter, the matter was listed for clarification by the Tribunal and the order on the said application was again reserved on 09th

In the present appeal, it has been averred that since the appellant was awaiting the final outcome of the aforesaid miscellaneous application filed before the Tribunal, the impugned order dated 28.02.2019 was not October, 2020. However till date no order has been pronounced by the Tribunal on the application filed by the appellant under Section 254(2) of the Act. 2020:DHC:3695-DB Page 3 of 10

Mr. Ajay Vohra, learned senior counsel for the appellant states that the appellant has been constrained to file the present appeal under Section 260A of the Act without waiting for a final order in the rectification application filed by it, as the appellant wishes to avail the benefit of waiver of interest and penalty under the amnesty scheme being ‘Vivad se Vishwas Scheme’, for which declarations have to be filed latest by 31 ARGUMENTS ON BEHALF OF THE APPELLANT st

Mr Ajay Vohra, learned senior counsel for appellant submits that the Tribunal erred in failing to adjudicate upon and consider the additional evidence furnished by the appellant under Rule 29 of the ITAT Rules before passing the impugned order. He further submits that the Tribunal erred in recording self-contradictory reasoning in the impugned order, inasmuch as, on the one hand, the Tribunal has recorded the failure on the part of the appellant to furnish necessary evidence following the order of the CIT(A), while on the other hand, failed to even consider the additional evidence furnished by the appellant. December, 2020. 9. Per contra, Mr. Raghvendra Singh, learned senior standing counsel for the respondent submits that as the appellant’s application for rectification under Section 254(2) of the Act is pending consideration, this Court should not condone the delay in the present case. He states that condonation of ARGUMENTS ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT 2020:DHC:3695-DB Page 4 of 10

He further submits that the appellant’s application for production of has been held as under:- “Thus, the only question which at best can be said to be raised for consideration before this court is whether for allowance or disallowance of a request for additional evidence to be produced before the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal is a question of law.

He lastly contends that the additional evidence filed by the appellant vide application dated 14th January, 2019, had in all probability, been considered by the Tribunal. In support of his contention, he refers to the Index of Additional Documents mentioned in the application for admission of additional evidence and points out that the additional documents mentioned therein had been referred in the written submissions filed by the appellant with the Tribunal after the conclusion of the hearing on 22nd January, 2019. He states that the Tribunal would surely have examined and taken into account the written submissions filed by the appellant before passing the impugned order.

In rejoinder, learned senior counsel for the appellant states that it is the appellant’s case that neither the appellant’s application for additional documents nor the synopsis filed by the appellant had been considered by the Tribunal before passing the impugned order. REJOINDER ARGUMENTS

As far as condonation of delay is concerned, he submits that this Court has been adopting a liberal approach on the ground that the procedure is handmaid of justice and the Court must always promote the cause of substantial justice. COURT’S REASONING

He lastly submits that the scope of Sections 254(2) and 260A of the Act are entirely different and therefore the appeal and rectification THE DELAY IN FILING THE APPEAL IS CONDONED AS IT IS SETTLED LAW THAT IN THE ABSENCE OF ANYTHING SHOWING MALA FIDE OR DELIBERATE DELAY AS A DILATORY TACTIC, THE COURT SHOULD NORMALLY CONDONE THE DELAY AS THE INTENT OF THE COURT IS ALWAYS TO PROMOTE SUBSTANTIAL JUSTICE

Having heard learned counsel for the parties, this Court is of the view that the delay in filing the present appeal is liable to be condoned as the appellant had within the limitation period prescribed under Section 254(2), filed the rectification application on 8th May, 2019. In the said application for rectification order had been reserved by the Tribunal on 8th November, 2019 and thereafter again on 9th October, 2020. However, as no order has been pronounced till date and the last date for filing the declaration under the amnesty scheme being Vivad se Vishwas Scheme (under which the appellant may get waiver of penalty and interest) is 31st

It is settled law that in the absence of anything showing mala fide or deliberate delay as a dilatory tactic, the court should normally condone the delay as the intent of the court is always to promote substantial justice. [See: Collector, Land Acquisition, Anantnag & Anr v. Mst. Katiji and Others (1987) 2 SCC 107 & N. Balakrishnan Vs. M. Krishnamurthy: 1998 (7) SCC 123]. December, 2020, the appellant, in order to avoid being prejudiced, has filed the present appeal.

Consequently, the delay in filing the appeal is condoned.

This Court is also in agreement with the submission of learned senior counsel for the appellant that the scope of Sections 254(2) and 260A of the Act are entirely different and it cannot be said in law that they are parallel or mutually exclusive proceedings, i.e., if a party invokes Section 254(2), it is SCOPE OF SECTIONS 254(2) AND 260A OF THE ACT ARE ENTIRELY DIFFERENT AND IT CANNOT BE SAID IN LAW THAT THEY ARE PARALLEL OR MUTUALLY EXCLUSIVE PROCEEDINGS

Normally speaking this Court would not entertain an appeal under Section 260A of the Act if an application for rectification under Section 254(2) of the Act is pending consideration as there is some overlap and if the order is recalled by the Tribunal, then the initial appeal would become infructuous. But in the present case, as the last date for availing the benefit of amnesty scheme being ‘Vivad se Vishwas Scheme’ is 31st

As far as the argument that the appellant’s application under Rule 29 of ITAT Rules is liable to be dismissed as the conditions mentioned therein are not attracted, this Court is of the view that it cannot second guess what order the Tribunal would pass as it is not for this Court but for the Tribunal to decide the said application. In fact, it has been so held by the Supreme Court in the case of Jyotsna Suri Vs. ITAT; 179 CTR 265 (SC). 2020:DHC:3695-DB Page 8 of 10

This Court is not impressed by the submission of learned standing counsel for the respondent that the additional evidence filed by the appellant had in all probability been considered by the Tribunal. In the impugned order passed by the Tribunal, there is no reference to either the additional documents placed on record by the appellant or to the written submissions/synopsis filed by the appellant. To hold that the additional 2020:DHC:3695-DB Page 9 of 10

For the aforesaid reasons, the present appeal is allowed and the order of the Tribunal dated 28 RELIEF th

However, this Court clarifies that it has not expressed any opinion on the merits of the application to be filed by the appellant under the amnesty scheme being ‘Vivad se Vishwas Scheme’. February, 2019 is set aside; the appeal of the also forwarded to the learned counsel through e-mail.

The original record of ITAT requisitioned vide order dated 17th