Murli Kumar Agrawal (Huf) v. Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax, Circle 1(1) Circle (1), Raipur,District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax, Circle 1(1) Circle (1

NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR TAXC No. 25 of 2024 Murli Kumar Agrawal (Huf) Proprietor Of M/s Konark Industries, Rajim,District : Gariyabandh, Chhattisgarh Murli Kumar Agrawal (Huf) Proprietor Of M/s Konark Industries, Rajim,District : Gariyabandh, Chhattisgarh ----Appellant Versus Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax, Circle 1(1) Circle (1), Raipur,District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax, Circle 1(1) Circle (1), Raipur,District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh ---- Respondent For Appellant For Respondent Mr. Apurv Goyal, Advocate. Mr. Ajay Kumrani, Advocate on behalf of Mr. Amit Chaudhari. Heard. Hon'ble Shri Goutam Bhaduri and Hon'ble Shri Radhakishan Agrawal, JJ. Judgment on Board(14.03.2024) 1.This appeal is against the order dated 18.10.2023 passed by theLearned Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) in ITA No. ITA22/RPR/2023. Whereby the appeal preferred by the appellant wasdismissed on the short ground of delay. Learned Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) in ITA No. ITA22/RPR/2023. Whereby the appeal preferred by the appellant wasdismissed on the short ground of delay. 2.Learned counsel for the appellant would submit that this appeal isfiled on the ground that despite sufficient reason having been shownfor condoning the delay, the Appellate Tribunal did not condone thedelay in the peculiar facts of this case. He further submits that theITAT did not go into it in detail, resulting into, the dismissal. filed on the ground that despite sufficient reason having been shownfor condoning the delay, the Appellate Tribunal did not condone thedelay in the peculiar facts of this case. He further submits that theITAT did not go into it in detail, resulting into, the dismissal. 3.After going through the record the following substantial question of law emerges:- “whether the appellant was precluded by sufficientcause to file the appeal before ITAT, within the timeprescribed?” 4.The record would suggest that Murli Kumar Agrawal (sincediseased), who was the Karta of HUF, filed the original return on16.11.2014 wherein the assessment order has been passed underSection 143(3) of the Income Tax Act. On 23.12.2016. Beingaggrieved by such order, an appeal was filed before theCommissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) under Section 246A(1)(a) on26.01.2017. It is contended that the Medical documents file wouldshow that on 29.04.2021, the Karta Murli Kumar Agrawal wasinfected with severe COVID-19 and was hospitalized at NH MMINarayan Superspeciality Hospital, Raipur. Subsequently, he wasshifted to Lilavati Hospital in Mumbai in between period of30.05.2021 to15.06.2021. Again he was admitted in Lilavati Hospitalin Mumbai on 18.06.201 to 29.07.2021 for various issues, thereafter,from August, 2021 till December, 2021, Murli Kumar Agrawal wassaid to be in complete bed rest. In the meanwhile, on 13.12.2021,the order was passed by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)which was appealable in nature. The appeal could not be filed beforethe ITAT within time because of COVID-19 pandemic break-through. On 10.01.2022, an order was passed by the Supreme Courtin Suo Motu W.P.C. No. 3 of 2020, whereby the period of limitationwas extended in consideration of COVID-19. 5. Subsequently, again in January, 2022 for the treatment of theKarta, he was again admitted in NH MMI Narayan SuperspecialityKarta, he was again admitted in NH MMI Narayan Superspeciality Hospital, Raipur from 22.02.2022 to 25.02.2022 for treatment ofcertain post COVID medical complications. On 11.03.2022 to15.03.2022, he was admitted in Rela Hospital, Chennai for treatmentof kidney and eventually on 15.05.2022, Murli Kumar Agrawal diedat Lilavati Hospital, in Mumbai which is evident from the deathcertificate. 5. Subsequently, again in January, 2022 for the treatment of theKarta, he was again admitted in NH MMI Narayan SuperspecialityKarta, he was again admitted in NH MMI Narayan Superspeciality Hospital, Raipur from 22.02.2022 to 25.02.2022 for treatment ofcertain post COVID medical complications. On 11.03.2022 to15.03.2022, he was admitted in Rela Hospital, Chennai for treatmentof kidney and eventually on 15.05.2022, Murli Kumar Agrawal diedat Lilavati Hospital, in Mumbai which is evident from the deathcertificate. 6.The time limit for filing the appeal before the ITAT expired on29.05.2022, and according to the appellant, the last rituals havebeen performed by Hitesh Agrawal, who stepped into the shoes ofthe Karta on 15.06.2022. Thereafter it is stated that from 16.06.2022to 23.11.2022, the son of the Karta, in between the period startedresuming the business activities, then only, the order came to hisknowledge when on 24.11.2022 notice was issued by Tax RecoveryOfficer which was received by new Karta i.e. Hitesh Kumar Agrawalby speed post on 02.12.2022. Therefore, the appeal was filed bynew Karta before the ITAT on 18.01.2023, i.e. after delay of 341days and after deduction of 108 days of the COVID period, the delayof 233 days exist. 7.The perusal of the medical record would show that the originalKarta, Murli Kumar Agrawal underwent the continuous frequenttreatment and was frequently admitted to the hospital. It is obviousthat the nature of the hospitalization and the infrequence would showthat the entire focus was to cure the ailment and eventually the stateof affairs continued and Murli Kumar Agrawal has died on15.05.2022. and 29.05.2022 the time limit for filing the appeal beforethe ITAT expired.Karta, Murli Kumar Agrawal underwent the continuous frequenttreatment and was frequently admitted to the hospital. It is obviousthat the nature of the hospitalization and the infrequence would showthat the entire focus was to cure the ailment and eventually the stateof affairs continued and Murli Kumar Agrawal has died on15.05.2022. and 29.05.2022 the time limit for filing the appeal beforethe ITAT expired. 4 8.Learned ITAT has dismissed the appeal solely on the ground that itis barred by time. Section 253(5) of Income Tax Act 1961 gives thepower to the Appellate Tribunal to admit an appeal, If it is satisfiedthat there was sufficient cause for not presenting it within that period.It is obvious that after death of Murli Kumar Agrawal on 15.05.2022,as has been stated by Hitesh Agrawal, who resumed the businessactivities, received the recovery notice then he field the appealbefore the ITAT. The ailment which was being suffered by MurliKumar Agrawal, who was the original Karta, has eventually died inMay, 2022 and thereafter the son Hitesh Kumar Agrwal, whostepped into the shoes of Karta resumed the business activitiesappears to be reasonable and logical.is barred by time. Section 253(5) of Income Tax Act 1961 gives thepower to the Appellate Tribunal to admit an appeal, If it is satisfiedthat there was sufficient cause for not presenting it within that period.It is obvious that after death of Murli Kumar Agrawal on 15.05.2022,as has been stated by Hitesh Agrawal, who resumed the businessactivities, received the recovery notice then he field the appealbefore the ITAT. The ailment which was being suffered by MurliKumar Agrawal, who was the original Karta, has eventually died inMay, 2022 and thereafter the son Hitesh Kumar Agrwal, whostepped into the shoes of Karta resumed the business activitiesappears to be reasonable and logical. 9.Accordingly, after considering the medical record and events offacts, we are of the view that sufficient cause was shown by HiteshAgrawal before ITAT which warrants the condonation of delay.Accordingly, we answer the question of law in favour of the appellantto hold that the sufficient cause was shown by Hitesh Agrawal tocondone the delay. Consequently, the order dated 18.10.2023 is setaside. The appeal is remanded back to the learned ITAT to decideafresh on merits.facts, we are of the view that sufficient cause was shown by HiteshAgrawal before ITAT which warrants the condonation of delay.Accordingly, we answer the question of law in favour of the appellantto hold that the sufficient cause was shown by Hitesh Agrawal tocondone the delay. Consequently, the order dated 18.10.2023 is setaside. The appeal is remanded back to the learned ITAT to decideafresh on merits. 10. Accordingly, the appeal is allowed to the extent indicated above. Sd/- Sd/- (Goutam Bhaduri) (Radhakishan Agrawal) Judge Judge