Ashwinbhai B. Pokiya v. The Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax ==========================================================

IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABADR/CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 1647 of 2022In F/TAX APPEAL NO. 9740 of 2021 ========================================================== ASHWINBHAI B. POKIYA Versus THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX ========================================================== Appearance:MS VAIBHAVI K PARIKH(3238) for the Applicant(s) No. 1RULE SERVED for the Respondent(s) No. 1========================================================== CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE N.V.ANJARIAand HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE BHARGAV D. KARIA Date : 18/10/2022 ORAL ORDER (PER : HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE N.V.ANJARIA) Heard learned advocate Ms. Vaibhavi Parikh for for the applicant. 1.1Though served with the Rule, nobody appears on behalf of therespondent. 2.This application is filed by the applicant-the original appellantpraying to condone the delay of 461 days which has occasioned inpreferring the Tax Appeal against judgment and order dated 31.7.2018passed in ITA No. 1011/Ahd/2014 for Assessment Year 2004-2005. 3.The delay is explained by the following averments, “The applicant had filed a Miscellaneous Application being MANo. 38/SRT/2018 against the impugned order passed by the ITATas there were certain mistakes apparent from the record in the said order of the ITAT. These mistakes changed the very outcome ofthe order. The applicant bonafide believed that the ITAT wouldrectify the said mistakes and recall its order, and therefore, noappeal was preferred before this Hon’ble Court. The saidMiscellaneous Application was filed before the ITAT on03.12.2018 and was taken up for hearing on 06.11.2020 and thesame was, however, rejected by the ITAT vide order dated18.12.2020. The said order passed in the MiscellaneousApplication was received by the applicant on 11.01.2021. Theapplicant then immediately forwarded the said order to itsChartered Accountant for seeking advice for further action who inturn forwarded it to the advocate alongwith the order in the mainappeal for preferring tax appeal before this Hon’ble Court. Theadvocate called for further relevant papers and details. The relevantpapers for filing the tax appeal were dispatched to the office of theChartered Accountant by the Applicant, which were thensent to the office of the advocate. The said papers were received atthe office of the advocate in the end of March. There was a delay inobtaining the required documents due to the ongoing covidpandemic. The tax appeal therefore has been filed on 09.04.2021.In any case, the period between 11.01.2021, when the order passedin the Miscellaneous Application was received and 09.04.2021when the Tax Appeal was filed is to be excluded from computingthe delay as per the order of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the caseIn Re Cognizance For Extension Of Limitation in MiscellaneousApplication No.665/2021 in SMW(C) No. 3/2020. The limitationperiod for filing the tax appeal was over as MiscellaneousApplication was preferred by the Applicant, and therefore, the saidtax appeal came to be filed on 09.04.2021” 4.In the totality of facts and circumstances, sufficient cause is madeout. Delay deserves to be granted. Accordingly, delay of 461 days iscondoned. 5.This application is allowed. Civil Application stands disposed ofRule is made absolute. (N.V.ANJARIA, J) C.M. JOSHI (BHARGAV D. KARIA, J)