ANKIT KALASH,RAIPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-3(2), RAIPUR, RAIPUR
No AI summary yet for this case.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, RAIPUR BENCH, RAIPUR
Before: SHRI RAVISH SOOD, JM & SHRI ARUN KHODPIA, AM
आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, रायपुर �यायपीठ, रायपुर IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL RAIPUR BENCH, RAIPUR �ी र�वश सूद, �याियक सद�य एवं �ी अ�ण खोड़�पया, लेखा सद�य के सम� । BEFORE SHRI RAVISH SOOD, JM & SHRI ARUN KHODPIA, AM (ITA No. 266/RPR/2022) (Assessment Year: 2014-15)
Ankit kalash V Income Tax Officer, Ward-3(2) Main Road, Katora Talab, s Aayakar Bhawan, Civil Lines, Raipur 492001, Chhattisgarh, India Raipur, Chhattisgarh PAN: ATXPK6351J (अपीलाथ�/Appellant) (��यथ� / Respondent) . . िनधा�रती क� ओर से /Assessee by : Shri Sunil Kumar Agrawal & Vimal Agrawal, CAs राज�व क� ओर से /Revenue by : Shri Ram Tiwari, Sr. DR सुनवाई क� तार�ख/ Date of Hearing : 22.11.2023 घोषणा क� तार�ख/Date of : 24.11.2023 Pronouncement आदेश / O R D E R Per Arun Khodpia, AM:
The captioned Appeal is filed by the assessee against the order of Ld. CIT(A), National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi for the assessment year 2014-15 dated 19.07.2022, which in turn resulted from the order of Ld. Income Tax Officer, Ward-3(2), Raipur under section 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 dated 16.12.2016.
At the outset, while the hearing in the present case has been commenced, the registry pointed out that the appeal of the assessee is barred by limitation involving a delay of 102 days. Ld. AR of the assessee regarding the delay, has furnished before us an application for
2 ITA No. 266/RPR/2022 Ankit Kalash
condonation of delay a/w affidavit signed by the assessee explaining the reasons for delay. The application for condoning the delay and affidavit are extracted as under:
3 ITA No. 266/RPR/2022 Ankit Kalash
4 ITA No. 266/RPR/2022 Ankit Kalash
After submissions of the aforesaid request by the assessee, Ld. AR, further submitted that the condonation of delay may be allowed in view of the judgment in the case of Senior Bhosale Estate (HUF) vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax is reported in (2019) 419 ITR 732(SC), wherein Hon’ble Apex Court has held that:
“Revenue authorities having not expressly refuted the stand taken by the assessees that they had no knowledge about passing of the order dt 29th Dec. 2003 by the Tribunal until June, 2008, the High Court should have shown indulgence to the assessees by condoning the delay in filing the appeals are restored to the High Court to be proceeded with in accordance with law”.
Carrying the arguments further, to support the contentions raised pertaining to explaining the sufficient cause for the delay, Ld. AR relied upon the judgment in the case of Collector, Land Acquisition vs. Mst. Katiji & Ors. reported in (1987) 167 ITR 471(SC), wherein Hon’ble Apex Court has held as under:
Ordinarily, a litigant does not stand to benefit by lodging an appeal late. 2. Refusing to condone delay can result in a meritorious matter being thrown out at the very threshold and cause of justice being defeated. As against this, when delay is condoned, the highest that can happen is that a cause would be decided on merits after hearing the parties. 3. "Every day's delay must be explained" does not mean that a pedantic approach should be made. Why not every hour's delay, every second's delay? The doctrine must be applied in a rational common sense and pragmatic manner. 4. When substantial justice and technical considerations are pitted against each other, the cause of substantial justice deserves to be preferred, for the other side cannot claim to have vested right in injustice being done because of a non- deliberate delay.
5 ITA No. 266/RPR/2022 Ankit Kalash
There is no presumption that delay is occasioned deliberately, or on account of culpable negligence, or on account of mala fides. A litigant does not stand to benefit by resorting to delay. In fact, he runs a serious risk. 6. It must be grasped that the judiciary is respected not on account of its power to legalize injustice on technical grounds but because it is capable of removing injustice and is expected to do so.
Based on the aforesaid decision, Ld. AR on behalf of the assessee has requested to condone the delay which was for the reason that the assessee was not ordinarily using the e-mail ID on which the order of the Ld. CIT(A) was served. Non-receipt of order by the assessee was caused on account that the assessee had not visited his e-mail ID, consequently, he has not received the order in time which shall be treated as reasonable cause for the delay and the same shall be condoned in light of the principle of law laid by Hon’ble Apex Court in the aforesaid two decisions.
Ld. Sr. DR on the other hand has objected on condonation of inordinate delay in filing of the appeal beyond the stipulated time provided by the statute. The delay should be considered as negligence on the part of assessee which shows lackadaisical conduct of the assessee, therefore, such unreasonable delay without any cogent cause should not be condoned and the appeal of the assessee should be treated as non- maintainable on this count itself.
We have considered the rival submissions by the parties and the case laws relied upon by the Ld. AR. In the present case the order by the
6 ITA No. 266/RPR/2022 Ankit Kalash
Ld. CIT(A), NFAC passed on 19.07.2022, and the same was delivered on the e-mail ID of the assessee on the same date i.e.,19.07.2022, however, as per submission in the form of application for condonation a/w affidavit by the assessee explaining the reason for such delay in filing of the appeal after 102 days from the prescribed date of filing of the appeal before the tribunal, that the personal e-mail ID of the assessee which was updated in the IT Portal was not generally used by him, and therefore, the order passed by Ld. CIT(A) was not accessed by the assessee in time and, thus, the delay was occurred.
Adverting to the judgments relied upon by the assessee in the case of Collector, Land Acquisition vs. Mst. Katiji & Ors. (supra), Hon’ble Apex Court has held that substantial justice and technical considerations are pitted against each other, the cause of substantial justice deserves to be preferred. It is further held that the delay should not be occasioned deliberately or on account of culpable negligence or on account of mala fide. A litigant does not stand to the benefit by resorting to delay. Hon’ble Apex Court has categorically mentioned that there should be sufficient cause for the delay and the court should be satisfied that sufficient cause exists for the delay, the delay can be condoned. In the other case relied upon by the Ld. AR, in the case of Sr. Bhosale Estate (HUF) vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax (supra), the same cannot come to rescue the contentions of the assessee that the assessee has not received the impugned order in time, since, the decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court was
7 ITA No. 266/RPR/2022 Ankit Kalash
pertaining to non-receipt / no knowledge about passing of the order dated 29.12.2003, which belongs to an era when there was a system of manual service of the orders, which cannot be considered at par with present case, wherein proceedings are completed under the regime through e- portals using the digital / electronic mode. The assessee is expected to be vigilant enough to check his e-mail ID updated on the Income Tax portal on regular intervals, particularly when some proceedings are pending in his case. The reasons offered for delay that the assessee is generally not using the e-mail ID, which was updated on the IT portal and, therefore, has not accessed the said ID for more than 100 days, and therefore, he could not receive the order on time is beyond comprehension thus, cannot be accredited. The reason explained fails to prove that there was sufficient cause by which the assessee was prevented, thus, led to delay in filing of the appeal. Notably, the appeal was filed by the tribunal on 28.12.2022, where as the challan for submitting the appeal fee was paid on 21.12.2022, again shows the apathetic approach, proves that the assessee is not attentive enough towards his legal obligations, therefore, the benefit of condonation of delay cannot be granted to such case. Consequently, the appeal of the assessee is held as non-maintainable on account of delay in filing of the appeal.
In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed.
8 ITA No. 266/RPR/2022 Ankit Kalash
Order pronounced in the open court on 24/11/2023.
Sd/- Sd/- (RAVISH SOOD) (ARUN KHODPIA) �याियक सद�य / JUDICIAL MEMBER लेखा सद�य / ACCOUNTANT MEMBER रायपुर/Raipur; �दनांक Dated 24/11/2023 Vaibhav Shrivastav आदेश क� �ितिल�प अ�े�षत/Copy of the Order forwarded to : 1. अपीलाथ� / The Appellant- 2. ��यथ� / The Respondent- 3. आयकर आयु�(अपील) / The CIT(A), 4. आयकर आयु� / CIT िवभागीय �ितिनिध, आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, रायपुर/ DR, ITAT, 5. Raipur 6. गाड� फाईल / Guard file. // स�या�पत �ित True Copy // आदेशानुसार/ BY ORDER,
(Assistant Registrar) आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, रायपुर/ITAT, Raipur
