2022 (9) TMI 1494 - HC - Income Tax

High Court overturns Tribunal decision, restores appeals for hearing. Appellant must cooperate for quick resolution. Legal questions remain open.

ANIRUDH BHUWALKA Versus DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE 4 (1), KOLKATA AND ANR.

The High Court of Calcutta allowed the appeal, setting aside the Tribunal's order and restoring the appeals for hearing on merits. The appellant was ... Proceeding with an ex parte hearing - application made by the Appellant for adjournment of the hearing - HELD THAT:- We find that the assessee did not appear before the tribunal and the tribunal records that a request for adjournment was made. However, the tribunal was not convinced with the reasons cited for seeking an adjournment. Before us the learned advocate appearing for the applicant would submit that the appellant had prayed for adjournment of the hearing fixed by the tribunal on January 31, 2022 because of ill health of the appellant and this aspect ought to have been considered by the tribunal and a more liberal approach could have been adopted. Further, the learned advocate appearing for the appellant sought to canvas various grounds on the merits of the matter. In our considered view, the appeal being of the year 2021 and it appears that on the first hearing date, that is, 31st January, 2022 adjournment was sought for on the ground of ill health of the appellant. However, there is no medical certificate produced before us to justify such a stand. We are of the view that since the alternative remedy available to the assessee before the learned tribunal is an effective and efficacious remedy more particularly because the learned tribunal is the last fact finding forum in the hierarchy of the authorities, therefore, we are of the view that one more opportunity should be granted to the assessee to contest the appeal on merits. Appeal is allowed and the order passed by the learned tribunal is set aside and the appeals are restored to the file of the learned tribunal to be heard and decided on merits in accordance with law. Issues:Delay in filing the appeal and condonation of delay; Substantial questions of law raised by the assessee regarding the Tribunal's actions and decisions.Delay in Filing the Appeal and Condonation of Delay:The High Court of Calcutta addressed the issue of delay in filing the appeal and the subsequent condonation of the delay. The Court noted a delay of 24 days in filing the appeal and examined the affidavit filed in support of the application for condonation of delay. After finding sufficient cause for the delay, the Court allowed the application for condonation of delay, thereby condoning the delay in filing the appeal.Substantial Questions of Law Raised by the Assessee:The assessee raised several substantial questions of law for consideration before the High Court. These included whether the Tribunal was justified in disregarding the application for adjournment, whether the Tribunal erred in ignoring specific provisions of the Income Tax Act, whether the Tribunal passed an unreasoned order, and whether the Tribunal erred in upholding the order of the CIT(A) for the assessment years 2018-19 and 2019-20. The Court examined the order passed by the Tribunal, which indicated that the assessee did not appear before the Tribunal and a request for adjournment was made. The Court considered the grounds presented by the appellant, including the ill health of the appellant as a reason for seeking adjournment. While no medical certificate was produced to support this claim, the Court decided to grant one more opportunity to the assessee to contest the appeal on merits before the Tribunal.In conclusion, the High Court allowed the appeal and set aside the order passed by the Tribunal. The appeals were restored to the file of the Tribunal to be heard and decided on merits in accordance with the law. The appellant was directed to appear before the Tribunal without seeking unnecessary adjournment and cooperate for the expeditious disposal of the appeal. The substantial questions of law raised by the assessee were left open for further consideration by the Tribunal.