SHAILENDRA GARG,SRIGANGANAGAR vs. ACIT/DCIT, CIRCLE-6, JAIPUR

ITA 1556/JPR/2024Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur07 March 2025AY 2015-1615 pages
AI SummaryAllowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal held that while the lower authorities had dismissed the appeals on grounds of delay, the ITAT, as a higher appellate forum, has the power to condone such delays if sufficient cause is shown. The Tribunal acknowledged the assessee's difficult circumstances, including prolonged judicial custody, bail conditions restricting his movement, and subsequent re-arrest, which demonstrably prevented him from actively pursuing his appeals. The Tribunal found that these were valid reasons for the inordinate delays. Consequently, the Tribunal condoned the delays in filing the appeals. Regarding the quantum appeals, the Tribunal noted that the assessee was ex-parte before the AO and CIT(A) and could not present his defense. To ensure that the lis between the parties is decided on merits and to provide the assessee an opportunity of being heard, the quantum appeals were restored to the file of the AO for fresh adjudication, with a direction to provide adequate opportunity of hearing and consider the mental agony of the assessee. The Tribunal clarified that this decision did not reflect on the merits of the dispute. As the fate of the penalty appeals was dependent on the quantum appeals, the penalty appeals were also restored to the file of the AO to act in accordance with law, following the decision on the quantum appeals. The appeals were allowed for statistical purposes.

What were the facts?

The assessee, Shri Shailendra Garg, filed multiple appeals before the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) challenging various orders passed by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) [CIT(A)] and the National Faceless Assessment Centre (NFAC) for assessment years 2011-12, 2012-13, 2014-15, 2015-16, and 2016-17. These appeals pertained to quantum additions and penalties levied under various sections of the Income Tax Act. The primary reason for the delay in filing appeals was stated to be the assessee's judicial custody and subsequent bail conditions restricting his movement, coupled with alleged negligence or lack of proper advice from his previous tax consultant. The CIT(A) and NFAC had largely dismissed the appeals or condoned delays, leading to the present appeals before the ITAT.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the Tribunal has the power to condone the delay in filing appeals when the lower authorities (CIT(A)/NFAC) have already dismissed the appeals on grounds of delay? 2. Whether the reasons provided by the assessee, including judicial custody, bail conditions restricting movement outside Rajasthan, and alleged negligence of his tax consultant, constitute sufficient cause for condoning the inordinate delays in filing the appeals before the ITAT? 3. Whether the quantum appeals should be restored to the Assessing Officer (AO) for fresh adjudication, considering the assessee's inability to present his case before the lower authorities due to the aforementioned circumstances? 4. Whether the penalty appeals under Sections 271(1)(c), 271F, 271(1)(b), and 271B of the Act should be decided in accordance with the outcome of the quantum appeals? Assessee's Contentions: The assessee argued that the delays were caused by his prolonged judicial custody (2015-2022), bail conditions preventing him from entering Rajasthan, subsequent re-arrest, and the COVID-19 pandemic. He also cited a lack of proper advice from his tax consultant. He contended that these circumstances prevented him from effectively pursuing his appeals and substantiating his case before the statutory authorities. The assessee prayed for condonation of delays and restoration of appeals on merit. Revenue's Contentions: The revenue, through the CIT-DR, did not explicitly record arguments regarding the merits of the case. However, the orders of the lower authorities indicate that they had dismissed the appeals primarily on the ground of delay and failure to furnish documentary evidence to support the claims for condonation.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 271(1)(c),Section 271F,Section 271(1)(b),Section 271B

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Heard together (2 matters)

ITA Nos.07/JP/2025
ITA Nos.08/JP/2025

Read from the judgment's own cause title. This page is filed under one of them.

आयकरअपीलीय अधिकरण, जयपुर न्यायपीठ, जयपुर IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, JAIPUR BENCHES,”B” JAIPUR (Virtual Hearing) डा० एस. सीतालक्ष्मी, न्यायिकसदस्य एवंश्रीराठोडकमलेशजयन्तभाई, लेखा सदस्य के समक्ष BEFORE: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI, JM & SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI, AM आयकरअपीलसं./ ITA Nos.07/JP/2025,06/JP/2025,1554, 1560 & 1561 /JP/2024 निर्धारणवर्ष / AssessmentYears : 2011-12, 2012-13, 2014-15, 2015-16 & 2016-17 (Quantum Appeals)

| (Quantum Appeals) | बनाम | The ACIT | Shri Shailendra Garg | Vs. | Circle-6 | Chak 5 M, Kesrisinghpur, | Ganganagar - 335 027 | Jaipur | स्थायीलेखा सं. / जीआईआर सं./PAN/GIR No.: ACQPG 4440 E | प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent | अपीलार्थी / Appellant

आयकरअपीलसं. / ITA Nos.08/JP/2025, 1555, 1559& 1563 /JP/2024 निर्धारणवर्ष / AssessmentYears : 2011-12, 2014-15, 2015-16 & 2016-17 (Penalty Appeals u/s 271(1)© of the Act)

| (Penalty Appeals u/s 271(1)© of the Act) | बनाम | The ACIT | Shri Shailendra Garg | Vs. | Circle-6 | Chak 5 M, Kesrisinghpur, | Ganganagar - 335 027 | Jaipur | स्थायीलेखा सं. / जीआईआर सं./PAN/GIR No.: ACQPG 4440 E | प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent | अपीलार्थी / Appellant

आयकरअपीलसं. / ITA Nos.1556 & 1562 /JP/2024 निर्धारणवर्ष / AssessmentYears: 20

The order continues below.

Read the full judgment

A free account opens 10 full judgments a month. Re-reading one you have already opened does not count again.

Create a free accountSign in

See plans and prices

The summary, the parties, the sections and the citations above are open to everyone and always will be. Only the text of the order and the PDF are metered.

More judgments on Section 271(1)(c)

All 25,141 judgments and leading authorities on Section 271(1)(c) →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →