TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2025 (5) TMI 1964
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... Respondent No. 5-Income Tax Appellate Tribunal are hereby set aside. iii) Matter is remitted back to the respondent Nos. 3 & 4 for reconsideration afresh in accordance with law. iv) Liberty is reserved in favour of the petitioner to submit additional pleadings, documents etc., to the said respondents, who shall consider the same and proceed further in accordance with law. v) All rival contentions are kept open and no opinion is expressed on the same." 2. The writ petition was filed in the year 2022 by the respondent herein before the learned Single Judge challenging the order dated 16.08.2010 passed by the Respondent No. 3-Commissioner (Appeals) as well as the order dated 22.02.2013 passed by the Respondent No. 5-Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (in short 'ITAT'). 3. The ground on which the learned Single Judge has allowed the petition is by noting a specific assertion on the part of the respondent that, it could not prosecute the appeals before the Respondent No. 3-Commissioner (Appeals-VI), Bengaluru, the Commissioner of Appeals (Mysuru) (Respondent No. 4) and the ITAT due to bona fide reasons, unavoidable circumstances and sufficient cause and in view of the payments h....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... the material on record, and taking note of the bona fide circumstances, due to which the respondent was unable to make payment of the admitted Tax and also taking note of the payments made by the respondent before filing of the Writ Petition and in the light of the order of the Division Bench in Komalakshi's case (supra), had rightly allowed the writ petition, setting aside the aforesaid impugned orders and restoring the appeals to the files of the 3rd and 4th respondents therein in order to afford another opportunity to the respondent to put-forth its case before the appellants on merits. 6. According to him, the grounds urged in the present appeal were never urged before the learned Single Judge either orally or in writing, nor did the appellants sought liberty to file the written submissions in support of their contentions. Therefore, the contentions of the appellants that the learned Single Judge has failed to appreciate that the respondent had not shown sufficient reasons for the purported delay in filing the writ petition and in payment of admitted Tax, is erroneous and misconceived. He also stated that, the learned Single Judge has rightly exercised his discretion and as s....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....Income Tax Authority and Another [2024 (470) ITR 513]. It was also his submission that, there was no delay or laches on its part in filing the writ petition. There was no fixed period of limitation for filing of the writ petition and what is ought to be considered is, whether the same has been filed within a reasonable time or at the earliest possible opportunity and the decision to issue a writ on such matter is a question of discretion, which has to be decided on the facts and circumstances arising in the case. In support of his contention, he placed reliance on the decision in the case of Sudama Devi Vs. Commissioner, Gorakhpur and others [(1983) 2 SCC 1]; Sri. Vallabh Glass Words Limited and another Vs. Union of India and others [(1984) 3 SCC 362]; Tukaram Kana Joshi and Others Vs. Maharashtra Industrial Development Corporation and Others [(2013) 1 SCC 353] and Chandra Bhushan and Another Vs. Deputy Director of Consolidation (Regional), U.P. and Others [AIR 1967 SC 1272]. He stated that, despite best efforts, the respondent was not aware of the date of hearing of it's appeals before the ITAT or the fact that the appeals had been dismissed vide impugned order passed by the ITAT.....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....n of law that it is not the duration of the delay but the sufficiency and acceptability of the cause of delay that has to be considered as held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of N. Balakrishnan Vs. M. Krishnamurthy [(1998) 7 SCC 123]; The Collector, Land Acquisition Vs. Mst Katiji and Others [ (1987) 28 ELT 185 (SC)] and Mool Chandra Vs. Union of India and Another [2024 SCC Online SC 1978]. 12. It was his submission that the appellant has contended that the respondent has not given sufficient reasons for non-payment of the admitted Tax, which is the basis on which the impugned order in the writ petition was passed by the 3rd and 5th Respondents. He stated that the reasons for non-payment of the admitted dues have been sufficiently explained and are demonstrated in writ petition from Paragraphs-11 to 16. According to him, the respondent was subjected to search and seizure procedure against him during which, attachments were effected on the Bank Accounts, immovable properties and original title documents and books of accounts of the respondent were seized, due to which, the respondent could, neither continue his business nor raised the amounts required to make payment of ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....filing the appeal under Section 246 (a), the same cannot be admitted as per the said Section 249 (4) (a) of the I.T. Act. The Tribunal in its order dated 22.02.2013 noting the fact that there is delay of 61 days in filing the appeals and no application for condonation of delay was filed and earlier also, the appeal was dismissed for non-prosecution on 12.04.2012 and the orders were recalled for affording opportunity of being heard to the Assessee and pursuant to the order passed on 30.11.2012, the appeals were listed for hearing on 12.02.2013 and as none appeared on that day, the hearing was adjourned to 13.02.2013, on which day also none appeared for the Assessee-Respondent, and on perusal of the grounds of appeal filed by the Respondent-Assessee, on the question of maintainability of the appeals, in view of non-payment of the tax due on income returned, which is in violation of Section 249 (4) (a) of the I.T. Act, has dismissed the appeals. 16. The learned Single Judge, noting the stand of the Respondent-Assessee that it could not prosecute the appeals due to bona fide reasons, unavoidable circumstances and sufficient cause having been shown and in view of the fact, Tax has been....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ly submits that it has not produced the financials for the intervening years only with a view to maintain brevity, but it humbly craves leave of this Hon'ble Court to produce the same as and when the same may be required. 30. Similarly, it did not hear from the IT Department in respect of the aforesaid appeals. The Petitioner's representatives used to appear before the officers of the IT Department on a very frequent basis in respect of all its matters, and not once was it ever mentioned that the appeals were disposed off. In fact, the Petitioner also filed all its audited financials with the Department. 31. While so, when the Petitioner's representative, Mr. Manu Ittina, had gone in the first week of March 2022 to meet with one of the Officers of the IT Department in relation its 2018 application for lifting of attachment of the properties of the Petitioner group of companies, he was informed that he should endeavour to get the Petitioner's appeals for AYs 2006-07 and 2007-08 also disposed off. On being informed of this, the Petitioner addressed a letter to the ITAT seeking to know the status of the appeals and hoping to get a date assigned for hearing. A tru....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....the appeals in question have been filed by the respondent herein for the Assessment Years 2006-07 to 2007-08 before the Commissioner (Appeals). It appears that, against Assessment Years: 2004-05 and 2005-06, the Revenue had come in appeals, which were dismissed. In any case, the Assessment Years with which we are concerned are primarily the Assessment Years 2006-07 and 2007-08 and it is a fact the tax due was not deposited. As such the appeals were not maintainable. The conceded position is that, when the appeals were dismissed vide order dated 12.04.2012, the Respondent had filed 02 applications for the restoration of the appeals. The appeals were restored on the file on 30.11.2012 and were listed on 12.02.2013, on which date concedingly there was no appearance for the Respondent. The appeals were adjourned to 13.02.2013, when also no one had appeared for the respondent. Thereafter the appeals were listed on 22.02.2013 when the same were dismissed. The Tribunal is justified by noting the ground on which the Commissioner (Appeals) has not admitted the appeals ie., on the ground of nonpayment of Taxes due, for dismissing the appeals. Surely when no one has appeared, the Tribunal i....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ot be accepted. Further discharging tax liability after 09 years would also not give the cause of action for the petitioner without challenging the orders of the years 2010 and 2013 immediately thereafter to file a writ petition. We are of the view that the learned Single Judge has not considered the aforesaid facts in proper perspective resulting in the passing of the impugned order. 19. The reliance placed by the learned Single Judge on the judgment in the case of Komalakshi (supra) is concerned, the issue which arose before the Division Bench of this Court is, Whether the order passed by the Commissioner (appeal) as, confirmed in the appeals before the Tribunal is justified. In the said case, this court in Paragraphs-12 and 13, has stated as under:- "12. Being aggrieved by various additions and disallowances made in the Assessment Orders for the years mentioned above, resulting in high pitched artificial demands, the petitioner company instituted statutory appeals before the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) for cause of justice. 13. It was brought to the knowledge of the department on various occasions that the department has attached stock in trade, though var....