Itta/20/2024 Of Sri Mahesh Gurram v. Income Tax Officer

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI FRIDAY, THE TWENTY THIRD DAY OF AUGUST - TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FOUR PRESENT HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE G.NARENDARAND HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE KIRANMAYEE MANDAVA INCOME TAX TRIBUNAL APPEAL NO: 20 OF 2024 AppealfiledunderSection260 Aof theIncome TaxAct,1961praying that the High Court may be pleased to allow the appeal by dulysetting aside the Order dated 22-03-2024 passedinI.T.A No.40A/iz/2022(Assessmentyear 2011-2012)bytheIncome Tax AppellateTribunal,Visakhapatnam Bench, Visakhapatnam, filed challenging[the][ Order][ dated]11-08-2020passedinDIS&OrderNo.lTBA/APL/S/250/2020-21/1027691960(1),bytheCommissionerofIncomeTax(Appeals),Hyderabad-9,whichfiledagainst the Order dated21-03-2014passedU/s.143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (Assessment year 2011-2012) bythe Income Tax Officer, Ward-1 (4), Visakhapatnam. Between: Sri Mahesh Gurram,R/o.39-33-100/2,Plot No.401,Opp.EastPark,Visakhapatnam. ...APPELLANT AND Income Tax Officer, Ward-2(1), Visakhapatnam. ...RESPONDENT lA NO: 1 OF 2024 PetitionfiledunderSection151CPCprayingthatinthecircumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the HighCourt may be pleased to stay the operation of the Order[dated][ 21.03.2014]passed by the Assessing Officer under Section 143(3)[of][ the][ Act,][ assessing]the total income of the Appellant at Rs.1,11,69,494/- and raising demand oftax payable at Rs.44,71,940/-, pending disposal of the appeal. Counsel for the Appellant:SRI MUDUNURU YESHWANTH VARMA Counsel for the Respondent: SRI VIJAY KUMAR PUNNA (STANDINGCOUNSEL FOR INCOME TAX DEPARTMENT) The Court made the following JUDGMENT: IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESHAT AMARAVATI THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE G.NARENDAR THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE KIRANMAYEE MANDAVA INCOME TAX TRIBUNAL APPEAL N0:20/2024 JUDGMENT (per Hon’ble Smt. Justice Kiranmayee Mandava) The appeal filed under Section 260 (A) of the Income[Tax][ Act,][ 1961,][ on]the following substantial questions of law: A.Whether theHon'ble ITAT erred in not foliowing and consideringthejudgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of[Suo-Moto][ Cognizance]for extension of limitation reported in 441 iTR 122, and holding[ that][ the]Appeal filed by the Appellant was with a delay despite[being][ within][ limitation?] B. Whether the Tribunal erred in law by disallowing the appeal filed by theAppellant on grounds of delay despite there being sufficient[cause][ for][ delay]in instituting the appeal? C. Whether the Hon'ble ITAT erred by not holding that procedural laws arehandmaiden of justice and that the CIT(A) and Hon’ble [ should][ not][ have]taken a hyper-technical approach while condoning the[delay?] 2.Brief facts of the case are: The assessee filed return of income admitting total[taxable][ income]atRs.2,80,551/-, The return was processed under Section[143(1)][ of][ the][ Act.][ The]assessment was completed and the Assessing Officer[passed][ order][ under]Section 143(3) of the Act, dated 21.03.2014, assessing[the][ total][ income][ of][ the]atassesseeatRs.1,11,69,494/-andraiseddemandoftaxpayableRs.44,71,940/-. Aggrieved by the order of the Assessing[Officer,][ the][ assessee] preferred an appeal before the CIT(A) and the Ld.CIT(A),dismissedtheappeal as barred by limitation. 3.Aggrieved by the same, the assessee filed further appeal beforethe Income Tax Appellate Tribunal. The Tribunal dismissed the appeal on theground that no sufficient cause was shown for the delay in filing the appealbefore the CIT(A) and further therewasan inordinate delay of517 days inpreferring the appeal before the Tribunal. 4.Heard Mudunuru Yeshwanth Varma,learned counselfortheappellant and Sri Vijay Kumar Punna, learned Counsel for the respondent.appellant and Sri Vijay Kumar Punna, learned Counsel for the respondent. preferred an appeal before the CIT(A) and the Ld.CIT(A),dismissedtheappeal as barred by limitation. 3.Aggrieved by the same, the assessee filed further appeal beforethe Income Tax Appellate Tribunal. The Tribunal dismissed the appeal on theground that no sufficient cause was shown for the delay in filing the appealbefore the CIT(A) and further therewasan inordinate delay of517 days inpreferring the appeal before the Tribunal. 4.Heard Mudunuru Yeshwanth Varma,learned counselfortheappellant and Sri Vijay Kumar Punna, learned Counsel for the respondent.appellant and Sri Vijay Kumar Punna, learned Counsel for the respondent. 5.The Hon’ble Apex Court in Suo MotuWrlt Petition (C) No.3 of2020, In Re; Cognizance For Extension of Limitation, has observed that: ‘III)In cases where the limitation would expired duringtheperiod between15.03.2020till 28.02.2022.notwithstandingtheactual balance period of limitation remaining, all persons shall havea limitation period of 90 days from 01.03.2022.In the event, theactual balance period of limitation remaining,witheffectfrom01.03.2022 is greater than 90 days, that longer period shall apply. IV)It is further clarified that the period from 15.03.2020till28.02.2022 shall also stand excluded in computing the periodsprescribed under Section 23 (4) and 29A of the ArbitrationandConciliation Act, 1996, Section 12A of the Commercial Courts Act,2015 and provisos (b) and (c) of Section 138 of the NegotiableInstruments Act, 1881 and any other laws, which prescribe period(s)of limitation for instituting proceedings, outer limits (within which thecourtortribunalcancondonedelay)andterminationofproceedings’’. F> 6.In the present case, the appeal was preferred on 28.02.2022,before the Tribunal. Respectfully following the decision[of][ the][ Hon’ble][ Apex]Court, the appeal filed by the assessee before the[Tribunal,][ cannot][ said][ to][ be]a belated one andin view of the decisionof the Hon’bleApex[Court,]thelearned Appellate Tribunal should have taken up the[matter][ and][ disposed][ of]the same on its own merits, rather dismissingit on[account][ of][ limitation.][ We]therefore, deemit appropriate to set aside the order[of][ the][ learned][ Appellate]Tribunal, dated 22.03.2024, and remit the matter to[the][ Appellate][ Tribunal][ to]hear and dispose of the same afresh, in accordance[with][ law][ after][ affording]opportunity to both the parties.before the Tribunal. Respectfully following the decision[of][ the][ Hon’ble][ Apex]Court, the appeal filed by the assessee before the[Tribunal,][ cannot][ said][ to][ be]a belated one andin view of the decisionof the Hon’bleApex[Court,]thelearned Appellate Tribunal should have taken up the[matter][ and][ disposed][ of]the same on its own merits, rather dismissingit on[account][ of][ limitation.][ We]therefore, deemit appropriate to set aside the order[of][ the][ learned][ Appellate]Tribunal, dated 22.03.2024, and remit the matter to[the][ Appellate][ Tribunal][ to]hear and dispose of the same afresh, in accordance[with][ law][ after][ affording]opportunity to both the parties. 8.In termsof theabove,the Income TaxTribunal Appealisdisposed of.There shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel, all pending miscellaneous applications[shall][ stand][ closed.] Sd/- E. KAMESWARA RAOJOINT REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// To,SECTION OFFICER 1. The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Visakhapatnam[Bench,]Visakhapatnam.Visakhapatnam. 2. The Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), Hyderabad-9. 3. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-1 (4), Visakhapatnam. 4. One CC to Sri Mudunuru Yeshwanth Varma Advocate[ ] 5. One CC to Sri Vijay Kumar Punna (Standing Counsel[for][ Income][ Tax]Department) Advocate Department) Advocate 6. Three CD CopiesBSVBSV TAC HIGH COURT PATED:23/08/2024>♦ JUDGMENT ITTA.No.20 of 2024 itta by remitting the•'MATTER WITHOUT COSTS