Mr. S. K. Acharya, Advocate v. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), Delhi And Another

Order No.02. IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK W.P.(C) No.14331 of 2023(Through Hybrid mode) …. Petitioner National Law University, Odisha Mr. S. K. Acharya, Advocate -versus- …. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), Delhi and another Opposite Parties Mr. A. Kedia, Advocate (Junior Standing Counsel, I.T) CORAM: JUSTICE ARINDAM SINHA JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR MISHRA ORDER23.06.2023 1.Mr. Acharya, learned advocate appears on behalf of petitioner (assessee). He submits, his client’s appeal against the intimation under section 143(1) of Income Tax Act, 1961 was dismissed on ground of delay. True it is that his client had averred in the appeal statements for condonation of delay of 509 days in presenting the appeal. However, the intimation issued on 4[th] June, 2020 and the appeal filed on 26[th] October, 2021 were within the period excluded from limitation as directed by the Supreme Court by order dated10[th] January, 2022 on applications made in Suo Motu Writ Petition (C) no.3 of 2020. 2.Mr. Kedia, learned advocate, Junior Standing Counsel appears on behalf of revenue. He submits, the assessee’s contentions on explanation for the delay, averred in the appeal, was considered and found meritless by the Commissioner. The findings are with reasons and there should not be interference. Furthermore, the assessee in spite of notices sent beyond the period covered in the suo motu writ petition, neglected to respond, and therefore, the writ petition should be dismissed. 3.Without going into the controvercy regarding the assessee having had made statements seeking to explain the delay, we find that the intimation was issued and the appeal filed, both within the period excluded by the Supreme Court in order dated10[th] January, 2022 (supra). In the circumstances, limitation could not have commenced to run against the assessee. On that ground alone, we set aside impugned order and restore the appeal to the Commissioner for expeditious disposal. 4.The writ petition is disposed of. 5. ( Arindam Sinha ) Judge Prasant ( S. K. Mishra ) Judge Signature Not Verified Digitally SignedSigned by: PRASANT KUMAR SAHOODesignation: SENIOR STENOReason: AuthenticationLocation: OHCDate: 23-Jun-2023 17:54:35