2024 (4) TMI 507 - SCH - Income Tax

Petition Dismissed After 309-Day Delay; Explanation Found Inadequate; Legal Questions Remain Open.

PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-1 Versus SITANSU SEKHAR MOHAPATRA

The SC dismissed a special leave petition due to a 309-day delay in filing, deeming the explanation inadequate for condonation. The application for ... Delay in filling appeal before SC - Claim of long-term capital gains on shares in terms of Section 10(38) - Assessee not claiming exemption u/s 10(38) at the stage of the assessment proceedings but turned around and make such claim of wanting to cross-examine persons - Denial of principles of natural justice - denial of an opportunity to cross examine the entry providers - As decided by HC [2023 (2) TMI 392 - ORISSA HIGH COURT] ITAT was justified in accepting the plea of the Assessee that the failure to adhere the principles of natural justice went to the root of the matter. Also, the CBDT circular that permitted to the Assessee to file revised returns if he omitted to make a claim was also not noticed by the AO.ITAT committed no error in concurring with the view of the CIT(A) and in dismissing the Revenue’s appeals HELD THAT:- There is gross delay of 309 days in filing this special leave petition. The explanation offered is not sufficient in law to condone the delay. Hence, the application seeking condonation of delay is dismissed. Consequently, the special leave petition is also dismissed keeping open the question of law, if any. In doing so, we have also followed the earlier order of this Court passed in Dipansu Mohapatra in [2024 (3) TMI 217 - SC ORDER] The Supreme Court dismissed a special leave petition due to a gross delay of 309 days in filing, with the explanation provided not sufficient to condone the delay. The application seeking condonation of delay was also dismissed, keeping open any question of law. The decision followed an earlier court order and any pending applications were disposed of.