Cwjc/1202/2025 Of Happy Science Bodhgaya India v. The Principle Chief Commissioner, Income Tax, Central Revenue Building, Virchand Patel Path, Patna

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNACivil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.1202 of 2025 ====================================================== Happy Science Bodhgaya India, Mahamaya Palace Hotel and ConferenceCenter, Bakraur is registered under the Trust having Registered office atBakrour-824231, Bihar through its General Secretary Sudama Kumar,Gender- Male, Age about-53 years, son of Mangal Chand Prasad, Resident ofMahamaya Palace Hotel, Village- Bakraur, P.S- Bodhgaya and District- Gaya... ... Petitioner Versus 1.The Principle Chief Commissioner, Income Tax, Central Revenue Building,Virchand Patel Path, Patna.Virchand Patel Path, Patna. 2.The Principal Commissioner/Commissioner-2, Income Tax, Central RevenueBuilding, Veerchand Patel Path, Patna.Building, Veerchand Patel Path, Patna. 3.The Commissioner of Income Tax, National Faceless Appeal Center(NFAC), Income Tax Department, New Delhi.(NFAC), Income Tax Department, New Delhi. 4.The Commissioner of Income Tax, Exemption, Central Revenue Building,Virchand Patel Path, PatnaVirchand Patel Path, Patna 5.The Income Tax Officer, Exemption, Ward-1, Patna. ... ... Respondents ======================================================Appearance :For the Petitioner: Mr. Krishna Mohan Mishra, Advocate Mr. Ashok Kumar, Advocate Mr. Prasoon Kumar, AdvocateFor the Respondents: Ms. Archana Sinha @ Archana Shahi, Senior SC Mr. Alok Kumar, Advocate Ms. Richa Rajeev, Advocate ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJEEV RANJAN PRASAD and HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK KUMAR PANDEYORAL JUDGMENT(Per: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJEEV RANJAN PRASAD) Date : 19-06-2025 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learnedSenior Standing Counsel for the Department of Income Tax. 2. The petitioner in the present writ application hasprayed for the following reliefs:- “i. To issue appropriate writs/ordersand/or direction in the nature of writ of certiorari to quash and set aside theorder dated 27.11.2024 (annexure-P/1)whereby and where under theCommissioner of Income Tax, Appeal,NFAC dismissed the appeal in limineon the ground of limitation withoutconsidering the limitation petitionwhich filed by the petitioner along withmemo of appeal dated 03.06.2019 andthe order passed by the Hon’ble ApexCourt in SLP No. 11840 of 2019wherein the Hon’ble Apex Court hascondoned the delay in filing appeal.ii. To hold and declare that the order ofdismissal of appeal passed by the ld.Commissioner, Income Tax, NFAC onthe ground of limitation is bad andillegal in view of the fact that theHon’ble Apex Court has passed orderin SLP No. 11840 of 2019 dated10.05.2019 whereby and wherein theHon’ble Apex Court had extended theperiod of limitation for four weeksfrom 10.05.2019 and the said appealwas filed within the period of fourweek along with limitation petition.iii. To hold and declare that the order ofdismissal of appeal in limine isotherwise bad and illegal in view of thefact that the appellant had filedlimitation petition along with memo ofappeal, as such, order passed by the ld.CIT, Appeal is illegal and arbitrary and also against the principle of naturaljustice.iv. To issue any other writ/writs,order/orders, direction/directions asyour honour deemed fit and proper.” Brief Facts of the Case also against the principle of naturaljustice.iv. To issue any other writ/writs,order/orders, direction/directions asyour honour deemed fit and proper.” Brief Facts of the Case 3. The petitioner is a charitable trust and its main aimsand objects are to act for charity and religious purposes. It isregistered from the office of the District Registration Office atGaya. The petitioner filed its return of income for the assessmentyear 2016-17 showing therein ‘NIL taxable income’ as the incomeof the petitioner was exempted from levy of tax. The return wasselected for scrutiny under Section 143(2) of the Income Tax Act(hereinafter referred to as the ‘I.T. Act’). Pursuant to the notice, thepetitioner appeared before the Assessing Officer. The AssessingOfficer passed an order of assessment against the petitioner and ademand of Rs.45,43,423/- has been raised. Notice of demandunder Section 156 of the I.T. Act is Annexure ‘P/4’ to the writapplication. 4. Thereafter, the petitioner filed a writ application beingCWJC No. 1778 of 2019 before this Court wherein the validity ofassessment and creation of demand were questioned. The said writapplication was disposed of by an Hon’ble Division Bench of this Court vide judgment dated 10.04.2019. While disposing of the writapplication, this Hon’ble Court noticed that during pendency of thematter, the period of limitation had expired, therefore, the Hon’bleDivision Bench held that if the petitioner chooses to file an appealwithin four weeks together with a petition for condonation ofdelay, the Appellate Authority i.e. the Commissioner, Income Tax(Appeal) shall consider and dispose of the same in accordancewith law on its own merits bearing in mind the pendency of matterbefore this Court. 5. The petitioner preferred a Petition for Special Leaveto Appeal (C) No. 11840 of 2019 before the Hon’ble SupremeCourt but could not succeed. The Hon’ble Supreme Court agreedwith the view of the High Court but extended the time which wasgranted by the High Court for pursuing the alternative remedies bya further period of four weeks. The order dated 10.05.2019 passedin Petition for Special Leave to Appeal (C) No. 11840 of 2019 isavailable at Annexure ‘P/6’ to the writ application. 6. It is the case of the petitioner that the petitioner filedappeal against the order of assessment before the AppellateAuthority on 03.06.2019 i.e. well within a period of four weeksgranted by the Hon’ble Supreme Court. The petitioner also filed alimitation petition and supplied the copy of the judgments of the Hon’ble Supreme Court and that of the Hon’ble High Court to theCommissioner of Income Tax, Appeal-1. The petitioner haspointed out in paragraph ‘9’ of the writ application that on perusalof Form 35 (Memo of Appeal) filed online on Income Tax portal, itwould appear that in Row Nos. 14 and 15 of Form 35, theappellant has briefly stated regarding delay in filing of the appealand also referred Writ Petition No. 1778 of 2019 filed before theHigh Court and SLP (C) No. 11840 of 2019 filed before theHon’ble Supreme Court. 7. It is the case of the petitioner that the appeal filed bythe petitioner remained pending since June, 2019 and in themeantime, the I.T. Act was amended and the case of the petitionerwas transferred to the National Faceless Appeal Center (NFAC).Pursuant to the notice under Section 250 of the I.T. Act from theNFAC, the petitioner filed a written submission and paperbookalong with additional evidence before the Commissioner ofIncome Tax, Appeal (CIT, Appeal) but the grievance of thepetitioner is that the Appellate Authority CIT Appeal, NFAC hasdismissed the appeal on the ground of limitation holding that thereis a huge delay of 137 days and the appellant has not filed petitionfor condonation of delay. Submissions on behalf of the Petitioner 7. It is the case of the petitioner that the appeal filed bythe petitioner remained pending since June, 2019 and in themeantime, the I.T. Act was amended and the case of the petitionerwas transferred to the National Faceless Appeal Center (NFAC).Pursuant to the notice under Section 250 of the I.T. Act from theNFAC, the petitioner filed a written submission and paperbookalong with additional evidence before the Commissioner ofIncome Tax, Appeal (CIT, Appeal) but the grievance of thepetitioner is that the Appellate Authority CIT Appeal, NFAC hasdismissed the appeal on the ground of limitation holding that thereis a huge delay of 137 days and the appellant has not filed petitionfor condonation of delay. Submissions on behalf of the Petitioner 8. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that it is acase in which the Appellate Authority seems to have acted in aroutine and mechanical manner without looking into the recordsotherwise he would not have held that the appellant has not filedpetition for condonation of delay. It is reiterated in paragraph ‘13’of the writ application that the petitioner had already filedlimitation petition along with memo of appeal wherein it wascategorically stated that the Hon’ble Apex Court and the Hon’bleHigh Court has extended the period of limitation in their respectiveorders, as such, the appeal may be treated within time. 9. It is submitted that it is a gross case of dereliction in duty by the Appellate Authority which has caused immensehardship to the petitioner by compelling him to once againapproach this Court by way of a writ petition. This has alsoburdened the petitioner with the cost of litigation besides wastageof time and energy. 10. Learned counsel submits that the impugned orderwhich is passed by the Appellate Authority is liable to be quashedand the petitioner is entitled for cost of litigation. Stand of the Respondents 11. A counter affidavit has been filed in which whileanswering paragraph ‘13’ of the writ application, statements havebeen made in paragraph ‘9’ of the counter affidavit. There is nodenial of the fact that the petitioner had filed an applicationseeking condonation of delay. The stand of the Respondents is thatthe Hon’ble High Court had not granted any period of limitationbut only stated that since the matter before the Court has takenaway the period of limitation, he was allowed four weeks time tofile appeal before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeal) whowill consider and dispose of the same in accordance with law onits own merit. 12. When the matter was taken up for consideration daybefore yesterday, noticing the kind of pleadings present on therecord, this Court called upon learned Senior Standing Counsel forthe Department to seek instruction from the competent authority asit appeared to this Court that the CIT (A), NAFC had completelyignored the judgments of the Hon’ble Supreme Court and thisCourt. This Court was of the prima-facie view that the action ofthe CIT (A) in passing the impugned order is a disobedience anddisregard shown to the order of the Hon’ble Supreme Court as well as that of this Court, therefore, it may be taken ascontemptuous. 12. When the matter was taken up for consideration daybefore yesterday, noticing the kind of pleadings present on therecord, this Court called upon learned Senior Standing Counsel forthe Department to seek instruction from the competent authority asit appeared to this Court that the CIT (A), NAFC had completelyignored the judgments of the Hon’ble Supreme Court and thisCourt. This Court was of the prima-facie view that the action ofthe CIT (A) in passing the impugned order is a disobedience anddisregard shown to the order of the Hon’ble Supreme Court as well as that of this Court, therefore, it may be taken ascontemptuous. 13. Today, when the matter has been taken up forconsideration, the learned Senior Standing Counsel for theDepartment has submitted on instruction that it seems to be a casein which the CIT (A) has apparently erred in passing the impugnedorder without taking into consideration the application seekingcondonation of delay and by not looking into the judgment of theHon’ble Supreme Court and the High Court. It is, however,submitted that the order was passed by NAFC, therefore, it isdifficult to find out the officer who seems to have passed theimpugned order. In fact, the submission of learned Senior StandingCounsel is that the impugned order may be set aside and the matterbe remitted to the Appellate Authority for a fresh considerationwithin a time frame. It is submitted that the Appellate Authorityshall give a physical hearing to the petitioner. Consideration 14. This Court having noticed the submissionshereinabove, has no hesitation in recording that this seems to be acase of gross negligence if not a case of dereliction in duty. TheCIT (A) at NAFC who passed the order has acted without lookinginto the records. At such a high position where he is required to consider each and every aspect of the matter in appeal, it isdifficult to believe that an officer at his level would act in such amanner that it would result in causing hardship to the assessee andmultiply the litigation. This Court is confining it’s observationswith regard to the order impugned in the present writ applicationonly. 15. In the admitted position, this Court sets aside theimpugned order as contained in Annexure ‘P/1’ to the writapplication and directs the CIT (A) to consider the appeal afreshkeeping in view the judgments of the Hon’ble Supreme Court andthat of this Court as discussed above. The CIT (A) has offered togive a personal hearing to the petitioner which must be given and areasoned order be passed within a period of three months from thedate of receipt/production of a copy of this order. 16. We would have left the matter here but thesubmission of learned counsel for the petitioner that it is a grosscase which has resulted in causing hardship to the petitioner andthe petitioner has been compelled to incur cost of litigation, cannotbe ignored. We fully agree with the contention of the learnedcounsel for the petitioner that the manner in which the impugnedorder has been passed has caused hardship to the petitioner and ithas also resulted in incurring litigation expenses. 17. In the facts of the present case, we, therefore, directthe Department of Income Tax/Respondents to pay a cost ofRs.10,000/- to the petitioner within a period of four weeks fromtoday. It is open to the Department to realise the cost amount fromthe erring officer in accordance with law. 18. This writ application stands disposed of accordingly. (Rajeev Ranjan Prasad, J) (Ashok Kumar Pandey, J) lekhi/-AFR/NAFRCAV DATEUploading Date20.06.2025Transmission Date