Nafr v. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-2, Ambikapur (C.g.)The Income Tax Officer, Ward-2, Ambikapur (C.g

2025:CGHC:7427-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPURTAX CASE NO. 89 OF 2024 Vidya Shankar Jaiswal, S/o Shri B.B. Jaiswal, aged about 65 years, R/o Bhagat Singh, Ward No.02, Pratappur, Sarguja, District Surguja (C.G.), PIN- 497223, PAN- .Vidya Shankar Jaiswal, S/o Shri B.B. Jaiswal, aged about 65 years, R/o Bhagat Singh, Ward No.02, Pratappur, Sarguja, District Surguja (C.G.), PIN- 497223, PAN- . ... Appellant(s) Versus The Income Tax Officer, Ward-2, Ambikapur (C.G.)The Income Tax Officer, Ward-2, Ambikapur (C.G.) ... Respondent(s) --------------------------------------------------------------------------------- --------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Division Bench Hon'ble Shri Justice Sanjay K. AgrawalHon'ble Shri Justice Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal Judgment on Board [12-02-2025] 1.The present appeal preferred by the appellant/ assessee under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 was admitted for hearing on 12.12.2024 by formulating the following substantial question of law:- (Tax Case No. 89 of 2024) “Whether the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal is justified in rejecting the application for condonation of delay of 39 days in filing the appeal, by recording a finding which is perverse to the record” 2.The appellant/assessee preferred an appeal before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) [for short, CIT(A)] against the Order dated 16.12.2018 (Annexure A-3) of the Assessing Officer. The CIT(A) dismissed the appeal of the assessee by its Order dated 3.8.2023 (Annexure A-5) which was again challenged by the assessee in appeal before the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (for short, ITAT) and the ITAT dismissed the appeal i.e. ITA No.350/RPR/2023 by impugned Order dated 13.2.2024 (Annexure A-1) on the ground of the appeal being barred by limitation on account of 39 days’ delay. It is this order of the ITAT against which the present appeal has been preferred by the appellant/assessee. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) [for short, CIT(A)] against the Order dated 16.12.2018 (Annexure A-3) of the Assessing Officer. The CIT(A) dismissed the appeal of the assessee by its Order dated 3.8.2023 (Annexure A-5) which was again challenged by the assessee in appeal before the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (for short, ITAT) and the ITAT dismissed the appeal i.e. ITA No.350/RPR/2023 by impugned Order dated 13.2.2024 (Annexure A-1) on the ground of the appeal being barred by limitation on account of 39 days’ delay. It is this order of the ITAT against which the present appeal has been preferred by the appellant/assessee. 3.Mr. S. Rajeshwar Rao, learned Counsel appearing for the appellant/assessee, submits that the impugned Order dated 13.2.2024 has governed the disposal of two connected appeals i.e. ITA Nos. 350/RPR/2023 and 351/RPR/2023 on the ground of delay of 39 days and 166 days respectively. Petitioner approached the Supreme Court challenging the order passed in ITA the appellant/assessee, submits that the impugned Order dated 13.2.2024 has governed the disposal of two connected appeals i.e. ITA Nos. 350/RPR/2023 and 351/RPR/2023 on the ground of delay of 39 days and 166 days respectively. Petitioner approached the Supreme Court challenging the order passed in ITA (Tax Case No. 89 of 2024) No.351/RPR/2023 which has already been set-aside by the Supreme Court by Order dated 31.1.2025[1 ]condoning the delay of 166 days thereinand therefore the impugned Order is also liable to be set-aside and the delay be condoned. In this regard, learned Counsel has also relied upon the Order dated 4.2.2025 of this .Court passed in Tax Case No.166 of 2024[2] (Tax Case No. 89 of 2024) No.351/RPR/2023 which has already been set-aside by the Supreme Court by Order dated 31.1.2025[1 ]condoning the delay of 166 days thereinand therefore the impugned Order is also liable to be set-aside and the delay be condoned. In this regard, learned Counsel has also relied upon the Order dated 4.2.2025 of this .Court passed in Tax Case No.166 of 2024[2] 4.Mr. Ajay Kumrani, learned Counsel appearing for the Respondent-Department, however supports the impugned Order and prays for dismissal of the appeal. Respondent-Department, however supports the impugned Order and prays for dismissal of the appeal. 5.We have heard learned Counsel(s) for parties, considered their rival submissions and also perused the record of the case with utmost care and circumspection.considered their rival submissions and also perused the record of the case with utmost care and circumspection. 6.Admittedly, there is a delay of 39 days in filing the appeal before the ITAT and for which the appellant/assessee has assigned the reason that the appeal was migrated to the National Faceless Appeal Centre and the appellant/assessee had no knowledge either of the notice issued under Section 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 or the passing of the appeal order and as soon as he came to the knowledge of the appeal before the ITAT and for which the appellant/assessee has assigned the reason that the appeal was migrated to the National Faceless Appeal Centre and the appellant/assessee had no knowledge either of the notice issued under Section 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 or the passing of the appeal order and as soon as he came to the knowledge of the 1Vidya Shankar Jaiswal v. The Income-Tax Officer, Ward-2, Ambikapur in Special Leave Petition (Civil) Nos.26310-26311/2024.2Pradeep Kumar Khandelwal v. The Income Tax Officer-1(1), Raipur. Leave Petition (Civil) Nos.26310-26311/2024.2Pradeep Kumar Khandelwal v. The Income Tax Officer-1(1), Raipur. (Tax Case No. 89 of 2024) order passed by the CIT(A), immediately the appeal was preferred before the ITAT, though with a delay of 39 days. 7.The Supreme Court vide its Order dated 31.1.2025 passed in the matter of Vidya Shankar Jaiswal(supra) while setting aside the order of this Court rejecting the appeal on the ground of delay, has held that the High Court ought to have adopted justice oriented and liberal approach by condoning the delay of 166 days. passed in the matter of Vidya Shankar Jaiswal(supra) while setting aside the order of this Court rejecting the appeal on the ground of delay, has held that the High Court ought to have adopted justice oriented and liberal approach by condoning the delay of 166 days. 8.In view of above and also for the reason shown by the appellant/assessee coupled with the fact the revenue did not file any counter-affidavit controverting the reason assigned by the assessee and as such the reason assigned by the assessee for delay in filing the appeal remained uncontroverted, the delay of 39 days occurred in filing the appeal deserves to be and is hereby condoned and the substantial question of law is answered accordingly. appellant/assessee coupled with the fact the revenue did not file any counter-affidavit controverting the reason assigned by the assessee and as such the reason assigned by the assessee for delay in filing the appeal remained uncontroverted, the delay of 39 days occurred in filing the appeal deserves to be and is hereby condoned and the substantial question of law is answered accordingly. 9.The matter is remitted back to the ITAT for deciding the appeal on merits, in accordance with law, at the earliest. the appeal on merits, in accordance with law, at the earliest. 10. The appeal stands allowed to the extent indicated herein-above, leaving the parties to bear their own costs. sharad Sd/- Sd/- 9.The matter is remitted back to the ITAT for deciding the appeal on merits, in accordance with law, at the earliest. the appeal on merits, in accordance with law, at the earliest. 10. The appeal stands allowed to the extent indicated herein-above, leaving the parties to bear their own costs. sharad Sd/- Sd/- (Sanjay K. Agrawal) (Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal) Judge Judge Digitallysigned bySHARADSHARADKUMARKUMARYADAVYADAVDate:2025.02.1317:12:46+0530