Punjab-Haryana High Court
Hussan Lal Puri vs Commissioner Of Income Tax Chd on 13 July, 2016
Author: Deepak Sibal
Bench: Deepak Sibal
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
Sr. No.210
C.M. No.4512-CII of 2016 in/and
ITA No.393 of 2015
Date of decision: 13.07.2016
Hussan Lal Puri
....Appellant
versus
The Commissioner of Income Tax, Chandigarh
....Respondent
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.J. VAZIFDAR, ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK SIBAL
****
Present:- Ms. Radhika Suri, Senior Advocate with Ms. Rinku Dahiya, Advocate for the appellant.
Ms. Urvashi Dhugga, Advocate for the respondent.
**** S.J. VAZIFDAR, ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE (ORAL) The appeal itself is liable to be allowed as the matter is admittedly covered in favour of the appellant in view of the order and judgment of a Division Bench of this Court dated 22.07.2015, in a group of appeals, the first of which is "C.S. Atwal versus The Commissioner of Income Tax, Ludhiana and another, ITA No.200 of 2013". An appeal against the judgment is pending in the Supreme Court.
2. However, the first question is whether we ought to condone the delay of 795 days in filing the appeal. The order of the Tribunal is dated 23.08.2013 and the appeal was filed on 13.10.2015. The appellant's case, however, is that he had engaged an Advocate, who unfortunately did not appear before the Tribunal and did not even inform him about the order of 1 of 2 ::: Downloaded on - 15-07-2016 00:21:09 ::: C.M. No.4512-CII of 2016 in/and -2- ITA No.393 of 2015 the Tribunal. The appellant claims to have learnt about the order of Tribunal only when recovery proceedings were initiated by the Department on 15.09.2015 by the issuance of a notice under Section 226 of Income Tax Act, 1961. It is true that the Department has contended that a copy of the order of Tribunal was despatched to the appellant at his last known address. The appellant, however, states that he had not received the same. An acknowledgment evidencing the receipt is not produced by the Department.
3. Over 50 identical appeals have been allowed by the said order and judgment of this Court and an appeal against the same is pending in the Supreme Court. In the facts of the case, we are inclined to condone the delay. In the circumstances, the application for condonation of delay is allowed.
4. The appeal is admitted on the question of law raised in paragraph No.6 of the appeal. The same is answered in favour of the appellant in view of the said order and judgment of this Court.
5. The appeal is accordingly allowed.
(S.J. VAZIFDAR) ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE (DEEPAK SIBAL) JUDGE July 13, 2016 Jyoti 1 2 of 2 ::: Downloaded on - 15-07-2016 00:21:11 :::