2025 (3) TMI 1007 - HC - Income Tax

Court Allows 371-Day Delay in Appeal Filing, Citing Justice-Oriented Approach and Personal Hardships; Costs Imposed on Appellant.

The HC condoned a 371-day delay in filing an appeal before the ITAT, emphasizing a justice-oriented approach. The appellant cited late knowledge of the ... Delay of 371 days’ in filing the appeal before the ITAT - 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 HELD THAT:- The Supreme Court vide its Order in the matter of Vidya Shankar Jaiswal [2025 (1) TMI 1526 - SC ORDER] 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. As per 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 appeal remained uncontroverted, therefore, the delay of 371 days occurred in filing the appeal being bona fide and unintentional deserves to be and is hereby condoned subject to payment of cost of 5, 000/- by the appellant to the High Court Legal Services Committee and the appellant is also directed to file proof thereof within 15 days from today. The substantial question of law is answered accordingly. ISSUES PRESENTED and CONSIDEREDThe core legal issue in this case was whether the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) was justified in dismissing the appellant's appeal on the grounds of a 371-day delay in filing, without sufficient cause being shown for condoning the delay. The question revolved around the interpretation of procedural fairness and the application of a justice-oriented approach in condoning delays in filing appeals.ISSUE-WISE DETAILED ANALYSISRelevant Legal Framework and PrecedentsThe legal framework involved Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961, which allows for appeals to the High Court on substantial questions of law. The procedural aspect of condoning delays is guided by the principles laid down by higher courts, emphasizing a liberal and justice-oriented approach, especially when the delay is not due to malafide intentions.The appellant relied on precedents such as the Supreme Court's decision in Vidya Shankar Jaiswal v. The Income-Tax Officer, where a delay of 166 days was condoned based on a liberal interpretation aimed at ensuring justice. Another relevant case was Pradeep Kumar Khandelwal v. The Income Tax Office, where similar principles were applied.Court's Interpretation and ReasoningThe Court acknowledged the delay of 371 days in filing the appeal before the ITAT. The appellant argued that the delay was due to the late knowledge of the impugned order and personal circumstances, including the severe health issues of the appellant's mother. The Court considered these reasons alongside the absence of any counter-affidavit from the revenue challenging the appellant's claims. This lack of opposition was pivotal in the Court's decision to condone the delay.Key Evidence and FindingsThe appellant submitted an affidavit supporting the reasons for the delay, which the revenue did not contest with a counter-affidavit. This unchallenged affidavit, combined with the appellant's explanation of personal hardship and the timing of the appeal filing, formed the basis of the Court's findings.Application of Law to FactsThe Court applied the principles from the cited precedents, emphasizing a justice-oriented approach. It noted that the delay was bona fide and unintentional, warranting a liberal interpretation in favor of the appellant. The Court also imposed a condition of payment of costs to the High Court Legal Services Committee, reflecting a balanced approach to condoning the delay.Treatment of Competing ArgumentsThe respondent's argument for upholding the ITAT's dismissal was based on procedural adherence. However, the Court prioritized substantive justice over procedural technicalities, especially given the lack of contestation from the revenue on the appellant's reasons for delay.ConclusionsThe Court concluded that the delay should be condoned, subject to the payment of costs, and directed the ITAT to decide the appeal on its merits. This conclusion was rooted in the principles of justice and fairness, ensuring that procedural delays do not hinder substantive justice.SIGNIFICANT HOLDINGSThe Court held that the delay of 371 days in filing the appeal was bona fide and unintentional, thus deserving condonation. It emphasized the need for a justice-oriented approach, quoting the Supreme Court's stance: 'The High Court ought to have adopted justice oriented and liberal approach by condoning the delay of 166 days.' This principle guided the Court's decision to allow the appeal and remit the matter back to the ITAT for a decision on merits.The Court's final determination was to allow the appeal to the extent of condoning the delay, subject to the appellant paying costs to the High Court Legal Services Committee. The matter was remitted to the ITAT for a merit-based decision, underscoring the Court's commitment to ensuring that procedural delays do not impede access to justice.