SHIV CHARAN GUPTA vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX AND ANOTHER

PDF · subscribers
ITA/477/2018HC Punjab & HaryanaPHHC01119350201820 January 2020Bench: MR. JUSTICE AJAY TEWARI,MR. JUSTICE AVNEESH JHINGAN2 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court found the ITAT's dismissal of the appeal solely on the issue of delay to be inappropriate. It set aside the ITAT's order declining condonation of delay and directed the ITAT to decide the appeal on merits.

What were the facts?

The assessee filed an appeal before the High Court challenging the ITAT's order which declined to condone a delay of 167 days in filing an appeal. The assessee argued that the ITAT took an unduly harsh view on the delay.

What were the issues?

Whether the ITAT was justified in dismissing an appeal for a delay without considering the merits. The appropriateness of condoning a delay in filing an appeal.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 260A,Section 254(1)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

ITA No.477 of 2018 -1- 209 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH **** ITA No.477 of 2018 Date of Decision: 20.01.2020 Shiv Charan Gupta Appellant Versus Commissioner of Income Tax, Chandigarh and another Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAY TEWARI HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AVNEESH JHINGAN Present: Mr. Vishal Gupta, Advocate for the appellant. Mr. Yogesh Putney, Sr. Standing Counsel for the respondents. **** AJAY TEWARI, J (Oral): [1] This is an appeal filed under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 [for brevity 'the Act'] against the order dated 16.05.2018 passed under Section 254(1) of the Act by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Chandigarh 'A' Bench, Chandigarh in ITA No.491/CHD/2017 [hereinafter referred to as 'the Tribunal'] for assessment year 2004-05, declining the application for condonation of delay of 167 days. [2] The contention of learned counsel for the petitioner is that even if the explanation for delay was not ironclad, yet the Tribunal undoubtedly took an unduly harsh and pedantic view, REEMA SAINI 2020.01.24 08:42 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document High Ciourt, Chandigarh

ITA No.477 of 2018 -2- where imposition of costs would have compensated for the delay. [3] Learned counsel for the Revenue argues that the reason given for the delay is hardly credible. [4] Be that as it may, we do not deem it appropriate that the Tribunal dismissed the appeal on the question of delay. Consequently, we deem it appropriate to set aside the order declining the condonation of delay. We direct the Tribunal to decide the appeal on merits, subject to costs of `10,000/-. Parties, through counsel, are directed to appear before the Tribunal on 24.02.2020. [AJAY TEWARI] JUDGE [AVNEESH JHINGAN] JUDGE January 20, 2020

pankaj baweja

1.

Whether speaking/ reasoned : Yes / No 2. Whether reportable : Yes / No REEMA SAINI 2020.01.24 08:42 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document High Ciourt, Chandigarh

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →