Taxc v. The Income Tax Ofïcer (Tds) Central Revenue Building, Civil Lines, Raipur, Chhattisgarh. The Income Tax Ofïcer (Tds) Central Revenue Building, Civil Lines, Raip

(Tax Case No. 124 of 2024) 2025:CGHC:17822-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR TAXC No. 124 of 2024 J.R.P. Builders And Developers, Quarter No. 4, Road No. 1, Sector-01, Raipur-492001, Chhattisgarh Through Its Partner Dalim Patel Aged About 51 Years Wife Of DL Patel Resident Of House No. 4, Kamala Kunj Sector 1, Ward No. 62, Near Bhaiya Talab Shaktimata Mandir, Professor Colony Raipur District Raipur Chhattisgarh, Pin 492001.J.R.P. Builders And Developers, Quarter No. 4, Road No. 1, Sector-01, Raipur-492001, Chhattisgarh Through Its Partner Dalim Patel Aged About 51 Years Wife Of DL Patel Resident Of House No. 4, Kamala Kunj Sector 1, Ward No. 62, Near Bhaiya Talab Shaktimata Mandir, Professor Colony Raipur District Raipur Chhattisgarh, Pin 492001. ... Appellant(s) versus The Income Tax OfÏcer (TDS) Central Revenue Building, Civil Lines, Raipur, Chhattisgarh. The Income Tax OfÏcer (TDS) Central Revenue Building, Civil Lines, Raipur, Chhattisgarh. ... Respondent(s) :For AppellantShri Siddharth Dubey, Advocate.::For Respondent :Shri Ajay Kumrani appears on behalf of Shri Amit Chaudhari, Advocates.Shri Ajay Kumrani appears on behalf of Shri Amit Chaudhari, Advocates. Division Bench Hon'bleShriJusticeSanjayK.Agrawal& Hon'ble Shri Justice Deepak Kumar Tiwari Judgment on Board(21.04.2025) (Tax Case No. 124 of 2024) SanjayK.Agrawal, J. 1. The present Appeal preferred by the appellant/assessee under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1956 (for short “the Act, 1956”) was admitted for hearing on 03.04.2025 by formulating the following substantial question of law:- “Whether the ITAT is justified in dismissing the appeal filed by the assessee on the ground that no sufÏcient cause has been shown for the delay of 272 days in filing the appeal by recording a finding which is perverse to the record?” 2. The appellant/assessee against the order dated 10.02.2021 passed under Section 201 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 preferred an appeal before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) [for short “CIT (Appeals)”] which was dismissed vide order dated 23.08.2022 passed under Section 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. Against that order, the appellant preferred an appeal before the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal [for short “ITAT”] which was also dismissed vide order dated 15.03.2024 holding that there is delay of 272 days on the part of appellant in preferring the appeal, for which sufÏcient cause has not been shown. It is this order of the ITAT against which the present appeal has been preferred by the appellant/assessee.under Section 201 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 preferred an appeal before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) [for short “CIT (Appeals)”] which was dismissed vide order dated 23.08.2022 passed under Section 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. Against that order, the appellant preferred an appeal before the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal [for short “ITAT”] which was also dismissed vide order dated 15.03.2024 holding that there is delay of 272 days on the part of appellant in preferring the appeal, for which sufÏcient cause has not been shown. It is this order of the ITAT against which the present appeal has been preferred by the appellant/assessee. 3. Shri Siddharth Dubey, learned counsel appearing for the appellant submits that ITAT is absolutely unjustified in rejecting the application as sufÏcient cause has been shown for delay in preferring the appeal. submits that ITAT is absolutely unjustified in rejecting the application as sufÏcient cause has been shown for delay in preferring the appeal. (Tax Case No. 124 of 2024) In this regard, he has relied upon the order passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of Vidya Shankar Jaiswal vs. The Income Tax OfÏcer Ward-2 Ambikapur[1], in which the delay of 166 days has been condoned by the Supreme Court and it was observed that sufÏcient cause has to be construed liberally. 3. Shri Siddharth Dubey, learned counsel appearing for the appellant submits that ITAT is absolutely unjustified in rejecting the application as sufÏcient cause has been shown for delay in preferring the appeal. submits that ITAT is absolutely unjustified in rejecting the application as sufÏcient cause has been shown for delay in preferring the appeal. (Tax Case No. 124 of 2024) In this regard, he has relied upon the order passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of Vidya Shankar Jaiswal vs. The Income Tax OfÏcer Ward-2 Ambikapur[1], in which the delay of 166 days has been condoned by the Supreme Court and it was observed that sufÏcient cause has to be construed liberally. 4. Shri Ajay Kumrani, learned counsel appearing for the Respondent would support the impugned order and prays for dismissal of the appeal.would support the impugned order and prays for dismissal of the appeal. 5. We have heard learned counsel for the parties, considered their rival submissions and also perused the documents with utmost care and circumspection.submissions and also perused the documents with utmost care and circumspection. 6. Admittedly, there is delay of 272 days in filing the appeal before the ITAT for which appellant/assessee has assigned the reason that the email-ID which was given was not of the appellant, but it was of the erstwhile representative of the assessee and therefore the order could not be communicated and once the order has been communicated, the appeal was preferred.ITAT for which appellant/assessee has assigned the reason that the email-ID which was given was not of the appellant, but it was of the erstwhile representative of the assessee and therefore the order could not be communicated and once the order has been communicated, the appeal was preferred. 7. The Supreme Court 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.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. 8. In view of the above and also for the reason shown by the appellant/assessee coupled with the fact that the revenue did not file appellant/assessee coupled with the fact that the revenue did not file 1Special Leave Petition (CIVIL) Nos.26310-26311/2024 (Tax Case No. 124 of 2024) any counter-afÏdavit 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 272 days occurred in filing the appeal deserves to be and is hereby condoned. 9. The substantial question of law is answered accordingly. 10. The matter is remitted back to the ITAT for deciding the appeal on merits, in accordance with law, at the earliest.merits, in accordance with law, at the earliest. 11. The appeal stands allowed to the extent indicated herein-above, leaving the parties to bear their own costs.leaving the parties to bear their own costs. Sd/- (Sanjay K. Agrawal) Judge Sd/- (Deepak Kumar Tiwari) Judge Avinash Digitallysigned byAVINASHAVINASHSHARMASHARMADate:2025.04.2310:26:19+0530