Taxc v. The Joint Commissioner Of Income Tax Range-1, Aayakar Bhawan, Vyapar Vihar, Bilaspur (C.g.).The Joint Commissioner Of Income Tax Range-1, Aayakar Bhawan, Vyapar

TAXC No. 190 of 2024 2025:CGHC:11709-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR TAXC No. 190 of 2024 Vineet Singh S/o Late Sudhish Singh, Aged About 51 Years, Managing Director, M/s Vineet Singh Construction Company Pvt. Ltd. Shop No. 3, Kashyap Complex, Indu Uday Chowk, Bilaspur (C.G.). R/o Om Nagar, Jarhabhatha, Bilaspur, ( C.G.).Vineet Singh S/o Late Sudhish Singh, Aged About 51 Years, Managing Director, M/s Vineet Singh Construction Company Pvt. Ltd. Shop No. 3, Kashyap Complex, Indu Uday Chowk, Bilaspur (C.G.). R/o Om Nagar, Jarhabhatha, Bilaspur, ( C.G.). ... Appellant versus The Joint Commissioner of Income Tax Range-1, Aayakar Bhawan, Vyapar Vihar, Bilaspur (C.G.).The Joint Commissioner of Income Tax Range-1, Aayakar Bhawan, Vyapar Vihar, Bilaspur (C.G.). ... Respondent Division Bench Hon'ble Shri Justice Sanjay K. AgrawalHon'ble Shri Justice Sanjay Kumar JaiswalJudgment on Board [10-03-2025] Sanjay K. Agrawal, J 1. The present appeal preferred by the appellant/ assessee under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 was admitted for Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 was admitted for hearing on 13.09.2024 by formulating the following substantial question of law:- “Whether the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal is justified in dismissing the appeal of the appellant preferred under Section 251 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 by holding that sufficient cause has not been shown for condoning the dealy of 371 days, by recording which is perverse to the record ?” 2. The Assessing Officer (hereinafter referred as to A.O.) raised concerns regarding an unsecured loan amounting to ₹31,00,000/- which the appellant herein received from M/sDA Enterprises during the assessment year 2012-2013. The said laon was not transacted through an account payee cheque or an account payee draft, which led to the initiation of penal proceedings under Section 271D of the Income Tax Act by the Joint Commissioner of Income Tax for violating the provisions contained in Section 269SS of the Income Tax Act. During the course of investigation, notices were served upon the appellant and detailed reply was submitted by the appellant. However, the A.O. was not satisfied with the appellant’s explanation and subsequently issued letters under Section 133(6) of the Income Tax Act to both the State Bank of India and the Oriental Bank of Commerce to make further inquiries regarding the said cheques, specifically to verify whether the cheques were account payee cheques. In response, the SBI, Tifra Branch and Oriental Bank of Commerce confirmed that the amount was credited through RTGS to the appellant’s account. However, despite this confirmation, the A.O. remained unsatisfied with the explanations and proceeded to impose a penalty of ₹31,00,000/- vide order dated26.03.2017 (Annexure A/1) agaist which the appellant herein preferred an appeal before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) [for short “CIT” (Appeals)], National Faceless Appeal Cente (for short “NFAC”) and the CIT (Appeals) upheld the decision of A.O. by dismissing the appeal of the appellant. Thereafter, the assessee herein, preferred an appeal before the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (for short ‘ITAT’) which was also dismissed by the ITAT by impugned order dated 28.06.2024 passed in ITA No.239/RPR/2024 (Annexure A/4) on the ground of the appeal being barred by limitation of 371 days’. It is the order of the ITAT against which the present appeal has been preferred by the appellant/assessee. TAXC No. 190 of 2024 TAXC No. 190 of 2024 3. Ms. Neelam Jaiswani, learned counsel for the appellant/assessee, would submit that by the impugned Order dated 28.06.2024 the appeal i.e. ITA Nos. 239/RPR/2024 of the assessee was dismissed on the ground that no sufficient cause has been shown for delay of 371 days in filing the appeal. She would also submit that the order came to the knowledge of the appellant on 02.05.2024 and immediately he proceeded to file the appeal which was filed on 23.05.2024 before the ITAT and even otherwise, the appellant is not a regular user of e-mail. She would further submit that at that time the appellant’s mother had been battling severe cardiovascular disease, along with other serious health conditions. In support of her submission, she relied upon the decision of the Supreme Court in the matter of Vidya Shankar--1Jaiswal v. The IncomeTax Officer, Ward2, Ambikapur in which the delay of 166 days’ has been condoned by the Supreme Court by Order dated 31.1.2025and, 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 1In Special Leave Petition (Civil) Nos.26310-26311/2024. 5 decision of this Court passed in Pradeep Kumar Khandelwal v. The Income Tax Office-1(1), Raipur2 . 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. Mr. Nikhilesh Begani, learned amicus curiae has also brought out the relevant facts, basis of delay herein and valuable legal position to our notice. out the relevant facts, basis of delay herein and valuable legal position to our notice. 6. We have heard learned counsels for parties, considered their rival submissions and also perused the record of the case with utmost care and circumspection.rival submissions and also perused the record of the case with utmost care and circumspection. 7. Admittedly, there is a delay of 371 days’ in filing the appeal before the ITAT and for which the appellant/assessee has assigned the reason that the appellant came to knowledge about the impugned order on 02.05.2024 and immediately, thereafter he filed the appeal before the ITAT on 23.05.2024.before the ITAT and for which the appellant/assessee has assigned the reason that the appellant came to knowledge about the impugned order on 02.05.2024 and immediately, thereafter he filed the appeal before the ITAT on 23.05.2024. 2TAX Case No.166 of 2024; decided on 04.02.2025 TAXC No. 190 of 2024 8. 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. 9. In view of above and also for the reason shown by the appellant/assessee coupled with the fact though the application of the appellant was supported by the affidavit, but the revenue did not file any counter-affidavit controverting the reason assigned by the assessee and, as such, the delay of 371 days occurred in filing the apeal remained uncontroverted, therefore, the delay of 371 days occurred in filing the appeal being bonafide and unintentional deserves to be and is hereby condoned subject to payment of cost of ₹ 5,000/- by the appellant to the High Court LegalServices Committee and the appellant is also directed to file proof thereof within 15 days from today. The substantial question of law is answered accordingly. Ankit TAXC No. 190 of 2024 10. The matter is remitted back to the ITAT for deciding the appeal on 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. Ankit TAXC No. 190 of 2024 10. The matter is remitted back to the ITAT for deciding the appeal on 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. 12. While parting with the record, we must place on record the appreciation for valuable assistance rendered by Mr. Nikhilesh Begani, learned amicus curiae. Sd/- Sd/- (Sanjay K. Agrawal) (Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal) Judge Judge