By Mr v. Chandrashekar, Adv., Formr. M. Lava, Adv

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 16[TH|]DAY OF JANUARY 2071 PRESENT| THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ALOK ARADHE AND| THE HON’‘’BLE MR. JUSTICE NATARAJ RANGASW A BETWEEN: LT.A. NO.81 OF 2017 SHRI. JIL.N. CHANDRASHEKAC/O JNC COFFEE LINKSMADAPUR ROAD, SUNTIKOPPA|MADIKERI-5/123/. (BY MR. V. CHANDRASHEKAR, ADV., FOR|MR. M. LAVA, ADV.,) .... APPELLAN/ AND* THE INCOME TAX OFFICER|WARD-1, SRIVALLI BUILDING|CHICKPET, MADIKERI-571201.. (BY MR. E.I. SANMATHI, ADV.,)— ~. RESPONDENT THIS I.T.A. IS FILED UNDER SEC. J6O0-A OF INCOME TAXACT 1961, ARISING OUT OF ORDER DATED 31.08.2016 PASSEDIN ITA NOS.843 & 844/BANG/2016 FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR.2007-08 & 2008-09, PRAYING TO: (i) FORMULATE THE SUBSTANTIAL QUESTION OF LAW.STATED ABOVE AND ANSWER THE SAME IN FAVOUR OF THE.APPELLAN!. | (ii) ALLOW THE APPEAL AND SET ASIDE THE FINDINGS TO.THE EXTENT AGAINST THE APPELLANT IN THE ORDER PASSED BY.THE ITAT, BENGALURU ‘C’ BENCH, BENGALURU IN ITA NOS.843 &844/BANG/2016 DATED 31.08.2016 FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEARS 2007-08 & JZOO8B-O9 RESPECTIVELY VIDE ANNEXURE-A. PASSSUCH OTHER ORDERS, AS THIS HON'BLE COURT DEEMS FIT AND.PROPER TO MEET THE ENDS OF JUSTICE. THIS I.7T.A. COMING ON FOR’ HEARING, THIS’ DAY, |ALOK ARADHE J.,DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: | JUDGMENT This appeal under Section 260-A of the Income TaxAct, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’, for short) has|been filed by the assessee. The subject matter of the appealpertains to the Assessment Years 2007-08 and 2008-09. Theappeal was admitted by a Bench of this Court vide orderdated 07.11.2017 on the following substantial questions oflaw: "1. Whether the Tribunal was Justified in law|in’ not condoningthedelay, whentheappellant nas demonstrated that tne lapses|were not voluntary and there was reasonablecause for the delay on the facts and|circumstance of the case?| 2. Whether the Tribunal was Justified in law in|not condoning tne delay by misunderstandingthe facts and consequently passed a perverse|order on the facts and circumstances of the|Case?| 3. Whetner the Tribunal is rignt in not|adjudicating the grounds on the merits raised|by tne Appellant? 4. Where tne Tribunal its right in law in notconsidering tne Additional grounds of appealraisedDytheAppellantInrespectof.Assessment year 2007-08 which pertain to tnevery validity of the assessment order?’ 2. Facts leading to filing of this appeal briefly stated aretnat the appellant is an agriculturist and is also a coffeecommission agent. Tne assessee filed nis return of incomefor the Assessment Years 2007-08 and 2008-09 declaring thetotalincome.of.Rs.1,67,206/-.andRs.1,46,211/-,respectively. The return of income for the Assessment Year2008-09 was processed. However, subsequently, the returnwas selected for scrutiny and notices under Section 143(1) ofthe Act were issued calling for the records. The assesseefiled the records before the Assessing Officer. Tne AssessingOfficer, on scrutiny of books of accounts, made additions ofcash deposits in savings Dank accounts on the ground tnattne casn deposits constituted income of the assessee. TheAssessing Officer, by an order dated 31.12.2010, completed the assessment for the Assessment Years in question bymaking additions of Rs.13,23,/54/-. the assessment for the Assessment Years in question bymaking additions of Rs.13,23,/54/-. 3. Thereupon, the assessee filed an appeal before theCommissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), who by an orderdated 09.03.2015, partly allowed the appeal. The assesseethereupon filed an appeal! before the Income Tax AppellateTribunal (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Tribunal’ for short)on 22.04.2016 along with an application for condonation ofdelay. The condonation of delay of 338 days was sougnt onthe ground that the assessee's son was appearing for the|board exams and tne assessee was required to stay at|Hassan to facilitate the studies of his son and therefore, hecould not seek professional advice in time, with regard to the.course of action which was to be taken in the lignt of theorder passed by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals).The Tribunal, by an order dated 31.08.2016, dismissed the|application for condonation of delay preferred by theassessee on the ground that the assessee has failed toestablisn sufficient cause for condonation of delay. In theresult, the appeal preferred by the assessee was also dismissed. In the aforesaid factual background, the revenueNas approacned this Court. 4 Learned counsel for the assessee submitted that the|Tribunal ought to have appreciated that the expression‘sufficient cause snould receive liberal interpretation so as toadvance tne cause of justice. On the other hand, learnedcounsel for the revenue submitted that in the facts andcircumstances of the case, the Tribunal has rightly held tnattne assessee nas failed to make out tne sufficient cause and|therefore, the order passed by the Tribunal does not call forany interference. — 5. We nave considered the SuDMISSIONS made on potn|sides and have perused the record. It is well settled in lawtnat tne expression ‘sufficient cause should receive |iberalconsideration so as to advance the cause of justice and theSame should not be used as a penal statute to punish theerring parties.(SeePERUMON BHAGAVATHY DEVSWODPV. BHARGAVI AMMA (DEAD) BY LRS' 2008 (8) SCC 321,KATARI SURYANARAYANA VS, KPOISETTI SUBBA RAO|AND ORS AIR 2009 SC 2907 and ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER (CT) LTU, KAKINADA & ORS. V. M/SGLAXOSMITHKLINECONSUMER|HEALTHCARELIMITED, 2020[36] G.S.T.L. 305). 6. In the backdrop of the aforesaid well settled legalposition, the facts of the case on hand may be seen. Theassessee is admittedly an agriculturist and is required toclosely monitor the agricultural activity in the field. The sonof the assessee was preparing for board exam and assesseewas required to stay in Hassan to ensure that his son attendsextra classes. Therefore, the assessee was unable to contactnis counsel for the reasons whicn were beyond his control.Thus, in the fact situation of the case, the Tribunal shouldnave taken a liberal view with regard to the cause snown bythe assessee seeking condonation of delay. 7. In view of aforesaid enunciation of law, we hold that|the finding recorded by the Tribunal that in the fact situationof the case, sufficient cause for condonation of delay was notmade out by the assessee, iS perverse. 8. In the result, the substantial question of law No.2 is.answered in favour of the assessee and against the revenue.Accordingly, the order dated 31.08.2016 passed by theTribunal is hereby quashed and the delay in filing the appealbefore the Tribunal Is condoned. Tne Tribunal is directed todecide the appeal preferred by the assessee on merits afteraffording an opportunity of hearing to the parties. Since we.nave already answered substantial question of law No.2 infavour of the assessee, therefore, it is not necessary for us todeal with the remaining substantial questions of law. In the result, the appeal is disposed of. Sd/-—JUDGE Sd/-JUDGE