Allowed

Vijay Kumar Chhattani v. Income Tax Officer

Chhattisgarh HC9 Mar 2025TAXC/203/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Assessee appealed against ITAT's dismissal of its application to condone a 161-day delay in filing appeal before the Tribunal. Relying on the Supreme Court's order in Vidya Shankar Jaiswal and the uncontroverted affidavit explaining non-communication of the order, the High Court condoned the delay subject to cost and remanded the matter to the ITAT for decision on merits.

What did the court decide?

Delay of 161 days condoned subject to ₹5,000 cost payable within 15 days; substantial question answered; matter remitted to ITAT for decision on merits.

Vijay Kumar Chhattani Vs Income Tax Officer — Income Tax | Chhattisgarh HC (2025)

¶1

¶2

2025:CGHC:11780-DB

¶3

ANKITKUMAR Digitallysigned byANKITKUMARSINGH SINGH Date:2025.03.12 14:18:40 +0530

¶4

NAFR

¶5

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR

¶6

TAXC No. 203 of 2024

¶7

Vijay Kumar Chhattani, SSD AGRO Tech Building, Village Tulsi, Neora, Tilda, Chhattisgarh, 493114, PAN - AFAPC4410R

¶8

... Appellant

¶9

versus

¶10

Income Tax Officer Ward-1(2), Aayakar Bhawan, Civil Lines, District Raipur (C.G.)

¶11

... Respondent

¶12

For Appellant :- Mr. Apurv Goyal, 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 Judgment on Board

¶15

[10-03-2025]

¶16

Sanjay K. Agrawal, J

¶17

The present appeal preferred by the appellant/ assessee under

¶18

Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 was admitted for

¶19

hearing on 18.10.2024 by formulating the following substantial question of law:-

¶20

“ Whether the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal is justified in dismissing the application for condonation of delay being the appeal under

¶21

¶22

Section 246A of the Income Tax Act by holding that sufficient cause has not been shown for condonation of dealy of 161 days by recording a finding which is perverse to the record?”

¶23

The appellant/assessee preferred an appeal before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) [for short CIT(A)] against the assessment order dated 14.12.2018 (Annexure A- 3) of the Assessing Officer (hereinafter referred as to A.O.). The CIT(A) dismissed the appeal of the appellant/assessee by its order dated 24.08.2023 (Annexure A-5) which was again challenged by the assessee in appeal before the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (for short “ITAT”) and the ITAT dismissed the appellant’s appeal i.e. ITA No.120/RPR/2024 by impugned order dated 12.07.2024 (Annexure A-1) on the ground that no substantial clarification was provided to support the dealy of 161 days in filing the appeal. It is the order of the ITAT against which the present appeal has been preferred by the appellant/assessee.

¶24

Mr. Apurv Goyal, learned counsel for the appellant/assessee, would submit that learned ITAT while passing the impugned order has relied upn the decision of this Court rendered in the matter of Vidya Shankar Jaiswal v. The Income-Tax Officer,

¶25

¶26

Ward-2, Ambikapur1 which has already been set aside by the

¶27

Supreme Court by order dated 31.01.2025² and, therefore, the impugned order is liable to be set aside 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

¶28

3 Sanstha v. ITO .

¶29

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

¶30

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

¶31

Admittedly, there is a delay of 161 days in filing the appeal before the ITAT and for which the appellant/assessee has assigned the reason that the communication of the order was made on an e-mail of which the appellant was not an active user and even the authorized representative of the assessee did not amend the e-mail id on which the order was to be

¶32

communicated and, therefore, the order could not be

¶33

1 Tax Case No.86 of 2024, decided on 12.04.2024.

¶34

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

¶35

3 Tax Case No.225 of 2024, decided on 09.12.2024.

¶36

¶37

communicated and as soon as the appellant came to know about the order, the appeal was preferred.

¶38

The Supreme Court vide its Order dated 31.01.2025 passed 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 oriented and liberal approach by condoning the delay.

¶39

In view of above and also for the reason shown by the appellant/assessee coupled with the fact that though the application of the appellant was supported by the affidavit, but the revenue did not file any counter-affidavit controverting the reason assigned by the assessee and, as such, the delay of 161 days occurred in filing the apeal remained uncontroverted, the delay of 161 days occurred in filing the appeal deserves to be and is hereby condoned subject to payment of cost of 5,000/- by the appellant to the₹ High Court Legal Services Committee and the appellant is also directed to file proof thereof within 15 days from today. The substantial question of law is answered accordingly.

¶40

¶41

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

¶42

The appeal stands allowed to the extent indicated hereinabove, leaving the parties to bear their own costs. However, it is made clear that failure to deposit amount of cost by the appellant within the stipulated time shall lead to automatic dissolution of this order.

¶43

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

¶44

Ankit

Vijay Kumar Chhattani v. Income Tax Officer

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Vijay Kumar Chhattani v. Income Tax Officer

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

M/S Vijay Pratap Vs the Commissioner of Central Excise and Service Tax

Mukesh Sahu Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Dev @ Bholu Sonwani Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Ram Prasad Alis Pootte Kispootta, Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Santosh Sahu Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Vineet Singh Vs the Joint Commissioner of Income Tax Range - 1