Allowed¶39

Pradeep Kumar Khandelwal v. the Income Tax Officer -1(1)

Chhattisgarh HC3 Feb 2025TAXC/166/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

condonation of delay; 309 days delay; Section 260A Income Tax Act 1956; ITAT appeal barred by limitation; email ID of erstwhile representative; order not communicated; cause uncontroverted; no counter-affidavit by revenue; Vidya Shankar Jaiswal set aside by Supreme Court; SLP (Civil) Nos. 26310-26311/2024; justice oriented and liberal approach; Navodit Samaj Sevi Sanstha; remand to ITAT for merits; Tax Case No. 166 of 2024; Pradeep Kumar Khandelwal; ITO-1(1) Raipur; High Court of Chhattisgarh; Division Bench.

What did the court decide?

Delay of 309 days in filing the appeal before the ITAT condoned; substantial question of law answered accordingly; matter remitted to the ITAT to decide the appeal on merits; parties left to bear their own costs. ¶39

Pradeep Kumar Khandelwal Vs the Income Tax Officer -1(1) — Income Tax | Chhattisgarh HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶39

Issue for consideration

Whether the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal was justified in holding that no sufficient cause was shown for the delay of 309 days in filing the appeal (i.e., whether the finding refusing condonation of delay was perverse to the record).

¶20

Court's answer

The delay of 309 days in filing the appeal before the ITAT is condoned: (i) the cause shown — that the email ID registered was that of the erstwhile representative, not the assessee, so the order could not be communicated — remained uncontroverted as the revenue filed no counter-affidavit; and (ii) the decision relied on by the ITAT (Vidya Shankar Jaiswal) has been set aside by the Supreme Court, which held that a justice-oriented and liberal approach ought to have been adopted in condoning the delay. The substantial question of law is answered accordingly.

¶37

Ratio / Principle

The matter is remitted to the ITAT for decision of the appeal on merits, in accordance with law, at the earliest.

¶38

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Condonation of delay — Appeal under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1956 against ITAT order dated 28.5.2024 dismissing the assessee's appeal as time-barred by 309 days — Cause shown: the registered email ID was that of the erstwhile representative, not the assessee, so the order was not communicated; revenue filed no counter-affidavit and the cause remained uncontroverted — Decision relied on by the ITAT (Vidya Shankar Jaiswal, Tax Case No. 86 of 2024, decided 12.4.2024) having been set aside by the Supreme Court by order dated 31.1.2025 in SLP (Civil) Nos. 26310-26311/2024, wherein it was held that a justice-oriented and liberal approach ought to have been adopted in condoning the delay — Delay of 309 days condoned; substantial question of law answered accordingly; matter remitted to ITAT for decision on merits — Appeal allowed, parties to bear their own costs (Division Bench: Sanjay K. Agrawal and Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal, JJ., 04-02-2025).

¶1

1/4

¶2

(Tax Case No. 166 of 2024)

¶3

2025:CGHC:6251-DB

¶4

NAFR

¶5

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR

¶6

TAX CASE NO. 166 OF 2024

¶7

 Pradeep Kumar Khandelwal, S/o Shri Babulal Khandelwal, aged about 50 years, 10/683, Sector Balaji Nagar, Shivanand Nagar, WRS Colony, Raipur - 492 008 (C.G.) PAN- BJYPK5882N

¶8

... Appellant(s)

¶9

Versus

¶10

The Income Tax Officer-1(1), Raipur (C.G.)

¶11

... Respondent(s)

¶12

For Appellant	:-	Mr. Siddharth Dubey,
		Advocate, along with
		Mr. Tridip Bhattacharya, Advocate.
For Respondent	:-	Mr. Ajay Kumrani, Advocate.

¶13

Division Bench

¶14

Hon'ble Shri Justice Sanjay K. Agrawal Hon'ble Shri Justice Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal

¶15

Judgment on Board [04-02-2025]

¶16

1. The present appeal preferred by the appellant/

¶17

assessee under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1956 was admitted for hearing on 10.12.2024 by formulating the following substantial question of law:-

¶18

2/4

¶19

(Tax Case No. 166 of 2024)

¶20

“ Whether the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal is justified in holding that no sufficient cause has been shown for delay of 309 days in filing the appeal, by recording a finding which is perverse to the record ”

¶21

2. The appellant/assessee preferred an appeal before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) [for short, CIT(A)] against the Order dated 21.12.2018 of the Assessing Officer. The CIT(A) dismissed the appeal of the assessee by its Order dated 9.2.2023 which was again challenged by the assessee in appeal before the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (for short, ITAT) and the ITAT dismissed the appeal by its Order dated 28.5.2024 on the ground of the appeal being barred by limitation on account of 309 days’ delay. It is this order of the ITAT against which the present appeal has been preferred by the appellant/assessee.

¶22

3. Mr. Siddharth Dubey, learned Counsel appearing for the appellant/assessee, submits that learned ITAT while passing the impugned Order has relied upon the decision of this Court rendered in the matter of Vidya

¶23

Shankar Jaiswal v. The Income-Tax Officer, Ward-

¶24

2, Ambikapur1 which has already been set-aside by the Supreme Court by Order dated 31.1.2025² and therefore the impugned Order is liable to be set-aside

¶25

1 Tax Case No.86 of 2024, decided on 12.4.2024.

¶26

2 Special Leave Petition (Civil) Nos.26310-26311/2024

¶27

3/4

¶28

(Tax Case No. 166 of 2024)

¶29

and the delay be condoned. In this regard, he also relied upon the judgment of this Court delivered in the matter of Navodit Samaj Sevi Sanstha Vs. ITO 3 .

¶30

4. Mr. Ajay Kumrani, learned Counsel appearing for the Respondent-Department, however supports the impugned Order and prays for dismissal of the appeal.

¶31

5. We have heard learned Counsels for parties, considered their rival submissions and also perused the record of the case with utmost care and circumspection.

¶32

6. Admittedly, there is a delay of 309 days in filing the appeal before the ITAT and for which the appellant/assessee has assigned the reason that the email ID which was given was not the email ID of the assessee, but it was of the erstwhile representative of the assessee and therefore the order could not be communicated and once the order has been communicated, the appeal was preferred.

¶33

7. The Supreme Court in the matter of Vidya Shankar Jaiswal (supra) while setting aside the order of this Court rejecting the appeal on the ground of delay, has held that the High Court ought to have adopted justice

¶34

oriented and liberal approach by condoning the delay. 3 Tax Case Noo.225/2024, decided on 9.12.2024.

¶35

4/4

¶36

(Tax Case No. 166 of 2024)

¶37

8. In view of above and also for the reason shown by the appellant/assessee coupled with the fact the revenue did not file any counter-affidavit controverting the reason assigned by the assessee and as such the reason assigned by the assessee for delay in filing the appeal remained uncontroverted, the delay of 309 days occurred in filing the appeal deserves to be and is hereby condoned and the substantial question of law is answered accordingly.

¶38

9. The matter is remitted to the ITAT for deciding the appeal on merits, in accordance with law, at the earliest.

¶39

10. The appeal stands allowed to the extent indicated herein-above, leaving the parties to bear their own costs.

¶40

Sd/- Sd/- (Sanjay K. Agrawal) (Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal) Judge Judge

¶41

sharad

¶42

Digitally signed SHARADKUMAR by SHARADKUMARYADAVDate: YADAV 2025.02.0617:09:55 +0530

Pradeep Kumar Khandelwal v. the Income Tax Officer -1(1)

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Pradeep Kumar Khandelwal v. the Income Tax Officer -1(1)

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Ram Yadav Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Pramod Sen Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Roopnarayan Toppo @ Gere Ram Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Shamim Khan Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Baliram Baghel @ Matwar Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Jhamman Pal Vs State of Chhattisgarh