RAJIV GANDHI RURAL HOUSING CORPORATION LIMITED vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

PDF · subscribers
ITA/120/2022HC KarnatakaKAHC01025172202106 June 2022Bench: P.S.DINESH KUMAR,ANANT RAMANATH HEGDE5 pages
AI SummaryAllowed

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court held that the reasons provided for the delay were sufficient and bonafide, especially considering the appellant is a State Government entity. Therefore, the delay in filing the appeal before the ITAT was condoned.

What were the facts?

The appellant, a State Government owned company, faced a delay of 714 days in filing an appeal before the ITAT. The delay was attributed to office shifting, lack of space for records, and a large-scale scanning project for e-office implementation.

What were the issues?

Whether the Tribunal was justified in not condoning a significant delay in filing an appeal without adjudicating on merits, and whether the reasons for the delay were sufficient.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 260-A

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Cases cited in this judgment(1)Show list

Detected automatically from the text. Citations are also linked where they appear in the judgment. The count shows how many other judgments on BharatTax rely on the same authority.

1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

DATED THIS THE 06TH DAY OF JUNE, 2022

PRESENT

THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE P.S.DINESH KUMAR

AND

THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE ANANT RAMANATH HEGDE

I.T.A NO.120 OF 2022

BETWEEN:

RAJIV GANDHI RURAL HOUSING CORPORATION LIMITED [PRESENTLY RAJIV GANDHI HOUSING CORPORATION LIMITED] 9TH FLOOR, CAUVERY BHAVANA E AND F BLOCK, K.G. ROAD BANGALORE-560 009

…APPELLANT

(BY SHRI.G.VENKATESH, ADVOCATE)

AND:

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE 5(1)(1), BTMC BUILDING 80 FEET ROAD, KORAMANGALA BANGALORE-560 095

…RESPONDENT

(BY SHRI. E.I.SANMATHI, ADVOCATE)

THIS ITA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 260-A OF INCOME TAX ACT 1961, ARISING OUT OF ORDER DATED 09.03.2021 PASSED IN ITA NO.2388/BANG/2019, FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2013-2014 PRAYING TO FORMULATE THE SUBSTANTIAL QUESTIONS OF LAW STATED THEREIN AND TO ALLOW THE APPEAL AND SET ASIDE THE FINDINGS THEREIN TO THE EXTENT AGAINST THE APPELLANT IN THE ORDER PASSED BY THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL IN ITA NO. 2388/BANG/2019 DATED 09.03.2021 REFERRED TO AS ANNEXURE-A RELATING TO THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2013-2014 AND ETC.,

THIS ITA COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, P.S.DINESH KUMAR J, DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: [[

2 JUDGMENT

Appellant is a State Government owned company. It has filed this appeal for framing the following substantial questions of law for consideration;

“17. Whether the Tribunal is justified in not condoning the delay of 714 days in filing appeal before the Tribunal even though there was sufficient and bonafide cause for such delay and passed a perverse order on the facts and circumstances of the case?

18.

Whether the Tribunal is justified in law in dismissing the appeal in limine and not adjudicating the specific grounds raised by the appellant on merits on the facts and circumstances of the case?”

2.

Heard Shri G.Venkatesh, learned advocate for the appellant and Shri E.I.Sanmathi, learned standing counsel for the respondent.

3.

Shri Venkatesh submitted that appellant's office was shifted from Rajajinagar Industrial Area to Kaveri Bhavan and there was no space in the new office for storage of records and the records were shifted to Kengeri. Thereafter, all the files were scanned from the year 2000 to 2018 for implementation

3 of e-office. As there were a large number of records and files, the files for the relevant year could not be traced in time.

4.

He further submitted that this Court has considered similar questions of law raised in Mrs. Premalatha Pagaria Vs. Income-tax Officer, Ward 9(2), Bengaluru1 and that the Tribunal has summarily dismissed the appeal.

5.

Shri Sanmathi argued opposing the appeal.

6.

We have carefully considered rival contentions and perused the records.

7.

Admittedly, the appellant is a company owned by the State Government. In the affidavit dated November 12, 2019, appellant has stated that due to administrative delay and frequent changes in the offices, the file was not placed for preferring the appeal. Appellant has filed supplementary application as per Annexure-E3 dated February 17, 2021 explaining the reasons, which read as follows;

1 [2021] 130 taxmann.com 403 (Karnataka)

“The Company has a policy for maintenance of all office records in its own building at Kengeri Satellite town, Bengaluru. As matter of record maintenance policy, the company decided to maintain all the records in storage of this office, which is in out skirts of city, approximately 20 km distance from the administrative office. Further, the company office is shifted from Rajajinagar Industrial area to Cauvery Bhavan, K G Road, Bengaluru, during the beginning of 2018. As there was no space in new office for storage of records the company decided to shift all the files to Kengeri storage space and get all the files scanned from the FY 2000 to 2018 for implementation of e-office as per government direction. As there was large amount of records and files in the storage place, we were unable to trace the required files in time for filing appeal before the Hon’ble ITAT.”

8.

It is settled that the cause for the delay has to be looked into while considering an application for condonation of delay and not the number of days. Keeping in view the fact that the company is owned by the State Government and the reasons stated in the supplementary application (Annexure-E3), we are of the opinion that sufficient reason is made out and delay in filing the appeal needs to be condoned.

5 9. In view of the above, the following; ORDER

(i) Appeal is allowed;

(ii) Substantial questions of law are answered in favour of the Assessee;

(iii) Delay of 714 days in filing the appeal before the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal is condoned; and

(iv) Tribunal shall consider the appeal on merits.

No costs.

Sd/- JUDGE

Sd/- JUDGE

More judgments on Section 260-A

All 2,570 judgments and leading authorities on Section 260-A →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →