Rajiv Gandhi Rural Housing ... vs Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax
2022 Latest Caselaw 8207 Kant

Citation : 2022 Latest Caselaw 8207 Kant
Judgement Date : 6 June, 2022

Karnataka High Court

Rajiv Gandhi Rural Housing ... vs Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax on 6 June, 2022

Bench: P.S.Dinesh Kumar, Anant Ramanath Hegde

                            1




     IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

         DATED THIS THE 06TH DAY OF JUNE, 2022

                        PRESENT

       THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE P.S.DINESH KUMAR

                           AND

     THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE ANANT RAMANATH HEGDE

                I.T.A NO.120 OF 2022

BETWEEN:

RAJIV GANDHI RURAL HOUSING
CORPORATION LIMITED
[PRESENTLY RAJIV GANDHI
HOUSING CORPORATION LIMITED]
9TH FLOOR, CAUVERY BHAVANA
E AND F BLOCK, K.G. ROAD
BANGALORE-560 009                             ...APPELLANT

(BY SHRI.G.VENKATESH, ADVOCATE)

AND:

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX
CIRCLE 5(1)(1), BTMC BUILDING
80 FEET ROAD, KORAMANGALA
BANGALORE-560 095                           ...RESPONDENT

(BY SHRI. E.I.SANMATHI, ADVOCATE)

       THIS ITA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 260-A OF INCOME TAX
ACT 1961, ARISING OUT OF ORDER DATED 09.03.2021 PASSED IN
ITA   NO.2388/BANG/2019,    FOR   THE   ASSESSMENT    YEAR
2013-2014    PRAYING    TO  FORMULATE    THE   SUBSTANTIAL
QUESTIONS OF LAW STATED THEREIN AND TO ALLOW THE APPEAL
AND SET ASIDE THE FINDINGS THEREIN TO THE EXTENT AGAINST
THE APPELLANT IN THE ORDER PASSED BY THE INCOME TAX
APPELLATE TRIBUNAL IN ITA NO. 2388/BANG/2019 DATED
09.03.2021 REFERRED TO AS ANNEXURE-A RELATING TO THE
ASSESSMENT YEAR 2013-2014 AND ETC.,

      THIS ITA COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS         DAY,
P.S.DINESH KUMAR J, DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
[[
                                     2




                            JUDGMENT

Appellant is a State Government owned company.

It has filed this appeal for framing the following

substantial questions of law for consideration;

"17. Whether the Tribunal is justified in not condoning the delay of 714 days in filing appeal before the Tribunal even though there was sufficient and bonafide cause for such delay and passed a perverse order on the facts and circumstances of the case?

18. Whether the Tribunal is justified in law in dismissing the appeal in limine and not adjudicating the specific grounds raised by the appellant on merits on the facts and circumstances of the case?"

2. Heard Shri G.Venkatesh, learned advocate for the

appellant and Shri E.I.Sanmathi, learned standing

counsel for the respondent.

3. Shri Venkatesh submitted that appellant's office

was shifted from Rajajinagar Industrial Area to

Kaveri Bhavan and there was no space in the new office

for storage of records and the records were

shifted to Kengeri. Thereafter, all the files were

scanned from the year 2000 to 2018 for implementation

of e-office. As there were a large number of records

and files, the files for the relevant year could not be

traced in time.

4. He further submitted that this Court has

considered similar questions of law raised in

Mrs. Premalatha Pagaria Vs. Income-tax Officer,

Ward 9(2), Bengaluru1 and that the Tribunal has

summarily dismissed the appeal.

5. Shri Sanmathi argued opposing the appeal.

6. We have carefully considered rival contentions

and perused the records.

7. Admittedly, the appellant is a company owned

by the State Government. In the affidavit dated

November 12, 2019, appellant has stated that due to

administrative delay and frequent changes in the

offices, the file was not placed for preferring the appeal.

Appellant has filed supplementary application as per

Annexure-E3 dated February 17, 2021 explaining the

reasons, which read as follows;

[2021] 130 taxmann.com 403 (Karnataka)

"The Company has a policy for maintenance of all office records in its own building at Kengeri Satellite town, Bengaluru. As matter of record maintenance policy, the company decided to maintain all the records in storage of this office, which is in out skirts of city, approximately 20 km distance from the administrative office.

Further, the company office is shifted from Rajajinagar Industrial area to Cauvery Bhavan, K G Road, Bengaluru, during the beginning of 2018. As there was no space in new office for storage of records the company decided to shift all the files to Kengeri storage space and get all the files scanned from the FY 2000 to 2018 for implementation of e-office as per government direction. As there was large amount of records and files in the storage place, we were unable to trace the required files in time for filing appeal before the Hon'ble ITAT."

8. It is settled that the cause for the delay has

to be looked into while considering an application

for condonation of delay and not the number of days.

Keeping in view the fact that the company is

owned by the State Government and the reasons

stated in the supplementary application (Annexure-E3),

we are of the opinion that sufficient reason is made out

and delay in filing the appeal needs to be condoned.

9. In view of the above, the following;