Itxa/102/2018 Of Anatek Services Pvt. Ltd v. Asst. Commissioner Of Income Tax - 10 (1)

MEERAMAHESHJADHAV Digitallysigned byMEERAMAHESHJADHAVDate:2022.02.1615:47:30+0530 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAYORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTIONINCOME TAX APPEAL NO.102 OF 2018 Anatek Services Pvt Ltd. ….Appellant V/s. Asst. Commissioner of Income Tax-10(1) …Respondents ---- Mr. Manoj Pandit for AppellantMr. Suresh Kumar for Respondents ---- CORAM : K.R. SHRIRAM &N.J. JAMADAR, JJ DATED : 11[th] FEBRUARY 2022 P.C. : 1Appellant is impugning an order pronounced on 7[th] April 2017 passedby the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT), rejecting the application forcondonation of delay in filing the appeals filed by appellant relating topenalty order dated 3[rd] March 2005 under Section 271(1)(c) of the IncomeTax Act 1961 (the Act), in three appeals filed for A.Y.-1999-2000, 2001-2002 and 2002-2003. According to ITAT, the assessee has filed its appealsbefore the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) [CIT(A)] against threepenalty orders on 24[th] June 2013 and hence there was huge delay of about 8to 9 years in filing the appeals before the Learned CIT (A). In normalcircumstances, we would also have dismissed this appeal but the facts andcircumstances of this case persuaded us to condone the delay. 2 2Appellant has received three penalty orders for the three assessmentyears as mentioned earlier. It is appellant’s case that to buy peace and putan end to the dispute, they paid the penalty amount as well. That is notdisputed. One fine day, almost 8 years later, sometime in 2013, appellantreceived a notice calling upon to show cause as to why prosecution shouldnot be initiated against appellant. Surprised with the turn of events,appellant decided to challenge the penalty orders. The challenge wasrejected by CIT(A) saying that the appeals have been filed with much delay.CIT(A) overlooked one factor that the prosecution itself has been launched8 or 9 years after the penalty amount was paid by appellant. If thedepartment feels that they can do this after 8 or 9 years delay, in our view,they must apply the same yardsticks for an assessee. 3In the circumstances, we condone the delay in filing the appeals. Theorder of the ITAT pronounced on 7[th] April 2017, is hereby quashed and setaside. The order of CIT(A) dated 14[th] August 2014 rejecting the appeals alsois quashed and set aside. The CIT(A) is directed to consider the appealsfiled by appellant in accordance with law and dispose the same within 12weeks from the date of this order is uploaded. Appellant will forward acopy of the appeals filed alongwith the copy of this order to CIT(A) withinone week of this order being uploaded. The CIT(A) shall grant a personalhearing to appellant and intimate date and time of personal hearing at least7 days in advance. If respondent wishes to rely on any judgment or orderpassed by any Court or Tribunal, he shall provide a copy thereof to appellant and give them an opportunity to deal with those judgments or distinguish those judgments and those submissions of appellant shall also be dealt with in the assessment order. 4Appeal disposed with no order as to costs. (N. J. JAMADAR, J.) (K.R. SHRIRAM, J.)