M/S Avtar Singh Construction Company (P) Ltd., Chandigarh v. Commissioner Of Income Tax, Chandigarh And Others

ITA No. 288 of 2015 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH ITA No. 288 of 2015 Date of Decision: 31.10.2015 M/s Avtar Singh Construction Company (P) Ltd., Chandigarh ....Appellant. Versus Commissioner of Income Tax, Chandigarh and others ...Respondents. 1.Whether the Reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment?the judgment? 2.To be referred to the Reporters or not? 3.Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? CORAM:-HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAY KUMAR MITTAL.HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SHEKHER DHAWAN. PRESENT: Mr. Vishal Gupta, Advocate for the appellant. Ms. Urvashi Dhugga, Advocate for the respondents. AJAY KUMAR MITTAL, J. 1.This appeal has been filed by the assessee under Section260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short “the Act”) against the orderdated 31.10.2014 (Annexure A-3) passed by the Income Tax AppellateTribunal, Chandigarh Bench “A”, Chandigarh (hereinafter referred to as“the Tribunal”) in ITA No. 1240/CHD/2012 for the assessment year 2007- 08, claiming the following substantial questions of law:- i)Whether the Tribunal erred on facts and in lawin dismissing the appeal of the appellant on theground that the same is time barred and noin dismissing the appeal of the appellant on theground that the same is time barred and no reasonable or sufficient cause has been shownin filing the appeal?in filing the appeal? ii)Whether the Tribunal was justified in dismissingthe appeals of the assessee on the ground ofdelay of 105 days in filing the appeal when thesame has been duly explained by the assesseeby filing the affidavit of the Managing Director inwhich medical grounds have been dulymentioned for condoning the delay? the appeals of the assessee on the ground ofdelay of 105 days in filing the appeal when thesame has been duly explained by the assesseeby filing the affidavit of the Managing Director inwhich medical grounds have been dulymentioned for condoning the delay? 2.A few relevant facts necessary for adjudication of the instantappeal as narrated therein may be noticed. The assessee is engaged inthe work of sub-contractor under the principal contractor of M/s JMCProject India Ltd. and M/s AFCON Infrastructure Ltd. and filed its originalreturn o 29.3.2008 for the assessment year 2007-08 declaring nilincome. The said return was processed under Section 143(1) of the Act.The case of the assessee was selected for scrutiny under CASS andnotice under Section 143(2) of the Act was issued on 13.8.2008. TheAssessing Officer calculated the income of the assessee from businessand other sources and passed the assessment order dated 30.12.2009(Annexure A-1). Feeling aggrieved, the assessee filed an appeal beforethe Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) [for brevity “the CIT(A)”].The CIT(A) vide order dated 21.5.2012 (Annexure A-2) upheld the orderof the Assessing Officer and dismissed the appeal. Still dissatisfied, theassessee filed an appeal before the Tribunal. However, the appeal filedwas barred by 105 days. The Tribunal vide order dated 31.10.2014(Annexure A-3) dismissed the appeal being time barred holding that theassessee had failed to explain that the delay was due to reasonable or ITA No. 288 of 2015 sufficient cause. Hence, the present appeal. 4.We have heard learned counsel for the parties. 5.Against the order dated 31.10.2014 (Annexure A-3) passedby the Tribunal, two appeals bearing ITA Nos. 215 and 288 of 2015 havebeen filed in this Court by the assessee. One appeal, i.e. ITA No. 215 of2015 has been decided by this Court vide order dated 6.8.2015 whereinthe impugned order passed by the Tribunal has been set aside and aftercondoning the identical delay of 105 days in filing the appeal before theTribunal, the matter has been remanded to the Tribunal to decide theappeal on merits. ITA No. 288 of 2015 sufficient cause. Hence, the present appeal. 4.We have heard learned counsel for the parties. 5.Against the order dated 31.10.2014 (Annexure A-3) passedby the Tribunal, two appeals bearing ITA Nos. 215 and 288 of 2015 havebeen filed in this Court by the assessee. One appeal, i.e. ITA No. 215 of2015 has been decided by this Court vide order dated 6.8.2015 whereinthe impugned order passed by the Tribunal has been set aside and aftercondoning the identical delay of 105 days in filing the appeal before theTribunal, the matter has been remanded to the Tribunal to decide theappeal on merits. 6.In view of the above, the present appeal is allowed and theimpugned order dated 31.10.2014 (Annexure A-3) passed by theTribunal is set aside and the matter is remitted to the Tribunal to decidethe same on merits in accordance with law. (AJAY KUMAR MITTAL) JUDGE October 31, 2015gbs (SHEKHER DHAWAN) JUDGE