Loading judgment…

JYOTI RANJAN ROY(LIMITED GUAREDIAN -SUVAJIT ROY),KOLKATA vs DCIT, CIR. 49(1), KOLKATA | BharatTax

JYOTI RANJAN ROY(LIMITED GUAREDIAN -SUVAJIT ROY),KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CIR. 49(1), KOLKATA

ITA 261/KOL/2024Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata22 May 2025AY 2006-07Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar (Accountant Member), Shri Sonjoy Sarma (Judicial Member)2 pages

AI SummaryAllowed

Facts

The assessee, a disabled person represented by his Limited Guardian, filed appeals against assessment orders with a significant delay of 5174 days. The delay was attributed to various factors including complex revision proceedings, the assessee's deteriorating health and Parkinson's disease, and changes in legal counsel.

Held

The Tribunal condoned the inordinate delay of 5174 days, finding the reasons to be bonafide, genuine, and sufficient, citing Supreme Court decisions that emphasize the cause of delay over its length. Additional evidences were admitted and the matter was restored to the Assessing Officer for fresh examination.

Key Issues

Whether the delay in filing the appeal is sufficient to warrant condonation, considering the assessee's disability, health issues, and complex legal proceedings; and whether additional evidence should be admitted for a proper adjudication.

Sections Cited

68, 263, 250, 253(3), 271(1)(c), 143(3)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “C”BENCH KOLKATA

Before: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Sonjoy Sarma

Appearances by: Shri J. P. Khaitan, Sr. Counsel, Pratush Jhunjhunwala, Advocate and Arvind Agarwal, Advocate Sretapa Sinha and Shakshi Singh, Ars appeared on behalf of the appellant. Shri H. Robindro Singh, Addl. CIT-DR & Jitendra Kantilal Surti, JCIT-Sr. DR, appeared on behalf of the Respondent. Date of concluding the hearing : 06.02.2025 & 21.05.2025 Date of pronouncing the order : May 22, 2025 , I.T.A. No.314/Kol/2017&

Assessment Year: 2006-07 Jyoti Ranjan Roy ORDER

Per Rajesh Kumar, Accountant Member:

1.

The captioned appeals have been preferred by the assessee against the separate orders of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-XXXII, Kolkata, Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-15, Kolkata &National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi [hereinafter referred to as the “ld. CIT(A)”] dated 31.12.2009, 05.12.2016 & 16.06.2023 respectively for the assessment year 20006-07.

2. Since all the appeals are interconnected and relate to the same assessee, therefore, these appeals have been clubbed and heard together and are being disposed of by this common order for the sake of convenience and brevity.

A.Y.

3.

At the outset, we observe on the basis of appeal folder that this appeal is time-barred by 5174 days in filing the appeal by the assessee.

4. The facts in brief are that the petitioner, Jyoti Ranjan Roy, is a disabled person and is being represented by limited guardian namely Suvojit Roy. The petitioner is the limited guardian of the assessee and is also his son and has been appointed as the Limited Guardian under the Rights of Persons with Disability Act, 2016 vide order dated January 11, 2024, passed by the Ld. District Judge, North 24 Parganas in Misc. Case No.74/2023 in Suvajit Roy (petitioner) and Debashree Roy Biswas and Others (Consentee petitioner). The instant petition is being filed for condonation of delay in filing the appeal against the order dated 31.12.2009, passed u/s 250 of the Act before the Tribunal.

8. We have heard the rival submissions and perused the materials on record. We find that the assessee is a disabled person and the petition filed by the petitioner namely Suvajit Roy who is appointed as the Limited Guardian under the Rights of Persons with Disability Act, 2016 vide order dated January 11, 2024, passed by the Ld. District Judge, North 24 Parganas in Misc. Case No.74/2023 in Suvajit Roy (petitioner) and Debashree Roy Biswas and Others (Consentee petitioner). The instant petition is being filed for condonation of delay in filing the appeal against the order dated 31.12.2009 passed u/s 250 of the Act which was received by the assessee on 01.01.2010 and the due date of filing of the appeal was 01.03.2010 u/s 253(3) of the Act, however, the appeal was actually filed on 01.05.2024 and thus there is a delay of 5174 days in filing the appeal. We note that the assessment in this case was made vide order dated 31.12.2008 by the Assessing Officer making various additions including qua investments of Rs.1,62,75,000/- in RBI Bonds u/s 68 of the Act. The assessee preferred an appeal against the said order before the ld. CIT(A), however, during the pendency of the appeal, the ld. Pr. CIT exercised his revisionary jurisdiction u/s 263 of the Act of the Act by issuing notice u/s 263 on 26.10.2009. Thereafter, on the 11 , Assessment Year: 2006-07 Jyoti Ranjan Roy advice of the tax counsel, the assessee did not pursue the appeal filed before the CIT(A) who stated that the addition made u/s 68 of the Act could be re-examined. In the set aside proceedings, the ld. CIT(A) in the meantime passed order u/s 250 of the Act dated 31.12.2008. The ld. PCIT passed order u/s 263 on 31.01.2011 setting aside the order dated 31.12.2008 thereby directing the Assessing Officer to make the assessment afresh. Even no appeal was filed against the order passed u/s 263 of the Act. We note that during the set aside proceedings, the Assessing Officer examined the issue of investments in RBI bonds and added the same in the order dated 25.08.2011. The assessee preferred appeal before the ld. CIT(A) against the order passed u/s 143(3)/263 of the Act dated 25.08.2011 with a delay 18 months due to ailing health. The ld. CIT(A) dismissed the said appeal by refusing to condone the delay as the causes/reasons shown by the assessee were not sufficient according to the ld. CIT(A). Thereafter, the assessee moved to the Tribunal and during the pendency of the appeal before the Tribunal, the ld. PCIT again invoked the jurisdiction u/s 263 vide order dated 21.03.2014 again setting aside the assessment and directing the Assessing Officer to make the assessment afresh after examining the issue as mentioned in the revisionary order. We note that in the second effect-giving proceedings, the Assessing Officer again enquired the issue of investment in RBI bonds and the assessee replied vide letter dated 26.03.2015 explaining the said investment. The Assessing Officer again in the order dated 31.03.2015 added the said investment u/s 68 of the Act. The assessee again preferred appeal before the ld. CIT(A) against the said order. In the meantime, the then counsel of the assessee advised the assessee to withdraw the appeal already filed before the Tribunal against the order dated 25.08.2011 on the ground that the assessment order had been set aside and fresh assessment has been framed and following the said advice of the counsel, the assessee filed a letter dated 12 , I.T.A. No.314/Kol/2017& Assessment Year: 2006-07 Jyoti Ranjan Roy 11.07.2016. Again, the ld. CIT(A) vide order dated 05.12.2016 rejected the appeal of the assessee on the ground that the same had already been adjudicated by the ld. CIT(A) in his order dated 31.12.2009. Now, the assessee again preferred an appeal before the Tribunal on 05.12.2016 challenging the addition confirmed by the ld. CIT(A). In the meantime, the assessee approached a new advocate who is regularly appearing in tax matters in Tribunal and High Court who advised the assessee that the assessee has committed a mistake by not filing the appeal against the order dated 31.12.2009 passed by the ld. CIT(A) and the same should be filed with condonation petition immediately. Thereafter, the appeal was filed before the Tribunal along with condonation petition and the appeal was listed for hearing on 29.10.2020 when the lockdown was already there. It was also stated before us that the assessee is an architect and was qualified in the year 1967 and had started a partnership firm in the name of CICCOI with one Md. Rafiq, Architect, with its registered office at DD-2, Salt Lake City, Kolkata. The said Partnership Firm was dissolved sometime in the year 1982-83. Since then, the Assessee carried on his business activity under the name of Jyoti Roy & Associates, as a proprietorship firm, at the same address and since been in charge of management and the projects of the said Firm. However, the entire personal file of the Assessee was handled by the Assessee himself and the petitioner was not aware of the assessments and tax issues in the tax files of the Assessee. We note that the assessee was suffering from Parkinson disease, which is a nervous disorder and he was not able to attend his personal affairs and the same position continued and even the assessee suffered a lot mental difficulties due to the said disease. Thereafter, due to ailing health of the assessee, the petitioner namely Suvajit Roy was appointed as the Limited Guardian under the Rights of Persons with Disability Act, 2016. Having considered the above contentions regarding the conditions and facts 13 , I.T.A. No.314/Kol/2017& Assessment Year: 2006-07 Jyoti Ranjan Roy before us, we are of the considered view that the delay in filing the appeal has occurred due to incorrect understanding of fact that once the proceedings u/s 263 of the Act were initiated, there is no need to penalise for further wrong advice given by the counsel and even in the set aside proceedings, time and again, the issue of investment in the RBI bond was examined by the Assessing Officer. Considering these facts and circumstances, we are of the view that the reasons for the delay are bona fide, genuine and sufficient and therefore delay needs to be condoned. The case of the assessee is supported by the decision of N. Balakrishnan vs. M. Krishnamurthy (supra), wherein, the Hon’ble Apex Court has held that the sufficient cause should be considered liberally and length of delay is no matter, explanation for such delay is the sole criterion. The Hon’ble Apex Court further held that in the absence of mala fide explanation or dilatory strategy, the court should condone the delay. The relevant part of the said decision of extracted below:

It is axiomatic that condonation of delay is a matter of discretion of the court Section 5 of the Limitation Act does not say that such discretion can be exercised only if the delay is within a certain limit. Length of delay is no matter, acceptability of the explanation is the only criterion. Sometimes delay of the shortest range may be uncondonable due to want of acceptable explanation whereas in certain other cases delay of very long range can be condoned as the explanation thereof is satisfactory. Once the court accepts the explanation as sufficient it is the result of positive exercise of discretion and normally the superior court should not disturb such finding, much less in reversional jurisdiction, unless the exercise of discretion was on whole untenable grounds or arbitrary or perverse. But it is a different matter when the first cut refuses to condone the dela. In such cases, the superior cut would be free to consider the cause shown for the delay afresh and it is open to such superior court to come to its own finding even untrammeled by the conclusion of the lower court. The reason for such a different stance is thus: The primary function of a court is to adjudicate the dispute between the parties and to advance substantial justice. Time limit fixed for approaching the court in different situations in not because on the expiry of such time a bad cause would transform into a good cause. Rule of limitation are not meant to destroy the right of parties. They are meant to see that parties do not resort to dilatory tactics, but seek their 14 , Assessment Year: 2006-07 Jyoti Ranjan Roy remedy promptly. the object of providing a legal remedy is to repair the damage caused by reason of legal injury. Law of limitation fixes a life- span for such legal remedy for the redress of the legal injury so suffered. Time is precious and the wasted time would never revisit. During efflux of time newer causes would sprout up necessitating newer persons to seek legal remedy by approaching the courts. So a life span must be fixed for each remedy. Unending period for launching the remedy may lead to unending uncertainty and consequential anarchy. Law of limitation is thus founded on public policy. It is enshrined in the maxim Interest reipublicae up sit finis litium (it is for the general welfare that a period be putt to litigation). Rules of limitation are not meant to destroy the right of the parties. They are meant to see that parties do not resort to dilatory tactics but seek their remedy promptly. The idea is that every legal remedy must be kept alive for a legislatively fixed period of time. A court knows that refusal to condone delay would result foreclosing a suitor from putting forth his cause. There is no presumption that delay in approaching the court is always deliberate. This Court has held that the words sufficient cause" under Section 5 of the Limitation Act should receive a liberal construction so as to advance substantial justice vide Shakuntala Devi Jain Vs. Kuntal Kumari [AIR 1969 SC 575] and State of West Bengal Vs. The Administrator, Howrah Municipality [AIR 1972 SC 749]. It must be remembered that in every case of delay there can be some lapse on the part of the litigant concerned. That alone is not enough to turn down his plea and to shut the door against him. If the explanation does not smack of mala fides or it is not put forth as part of a dilatory strategy the court must show utmost consideration to the suitor. But when there is reasonable ground to think that the delay was occasioned by the party deliberately to gain time then the court should lean against acceptance of the explanation. While condoning delay the Could should not forget the opposite party altogether. It must be borne in mind that he is a looser and he too would have incurred quiet a large litigation expenses. It would be a salutary guideline that when courts condone the delay due to laches on the part of the applicant the court shall compensate the opposite party for his loss. In this case explanation for the delay set up by the appellant was found satisfactory to the trial court in the exercise of its discretion and the High Court went wrong in upsetting the finding, more so when the High Court was exercising reversional jurisdiction. Nonetheless, the respondent must be compensated particularly because the appellant has secured a sum of Rs. Fifty thousand from the delinquent advocate through the Consumer Disputes Riderless Forum. We, therefore, allow these appeals and set aside the impugned order by restoring the order passed by the trial court but on a condition that appellant shall pay a sum of Rupee Ten thousand to the respondent (or deposit it in this court within one month from this date. The appeals are disposed of accordingly.” 15 , I.T.A. No.314/Kol/2017& Assessment Year: 2006-07 Jyoti Ranjan Roy 8.1 We further reply on another decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Mool Chandra vs. UOI (supra), wherein, the Hon’ble Apex Court has held that the cause of the delay must be considered instead of the length of the delay. The relevant part of the said decision of extracted below:

“20. Be that as it may. On account of liberty having been granted to the appellant to pursue his remedy in accordance with law, yet another O.A. No.2066 of 2020 along with an application for condonation of delay came to be filed. The delay was not condoned by the Tribunal on the ground that it was filed more than one year after the impugned order came to be passed. No litigant stands to benefit in approaching the courts belatedly. It is not the length of delay that would be required to be considered while examining the plea for condonation of delay, it is the cause for delay which has been propounded will have to be examined. If the cause for delay would fall within the four corners of “sufficient cause”, irrespective of the length of delay same deserves to be condoned. However, if the cause shown is insufficient, irrespective of the period of delay, same would not be condoned.” 8.2 Considering the above decision of the apex court and the reasons cited before us, we are inclined to condone the delay by admitting the appeal for adjudication. The assessee has also filed an application for admitting of additional evidences before us vide letter dated 03.02.2025 submitting the details of paper-book running from pages 58 to 102 therewith. The additional evidences comprise the details of investment in RBI bond, the balance sheet as on 31.03.2005 and 31.03.2006, ledgers for the F.Ys 2004-05 and 2005-06, copies of pass-book, confirmation of account, certificate of repayment dated 12.09.2005 of Rs.44,26,050/- for 9% bonds issued by the RBI, confirmation dated 28.09.2018 issued by Syndicate Bank along with statements of bank accounts. After hearing both the parties and considering these new documents, we note that these are the basic and important documents which are required to be examined and considered for correct adjudication of the issue. We are of the opinion that these additional evidences are required to be examined at the end of the Assessing , Assessment Year: 2006-07 Jyoti Ranjan Roy Officer. Accordingly, we admit the same and restore the matter to the file of the Assessing Officer to examine the additional evidences filed by the assessee and thereafter, to decide the issue of investment in RBI Bonds accordingly as per the facts and law. The appeal is allowed for statistical purposes.