Madhya Pradesh High Court
Shri Neel Kumar Ajmera Alias Nilesh ... vs Pr. Commissioner Of Income Tax Indore I on 1 April, 2025
Author: Sushrut Arvind Dharmadhikari
Bench: Sushrut Arvind Dharmadhikari
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:8489
1 ITA No.1/2025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT INDORE
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE SUSHRUT ARVIND DHARMADHIKARI
&
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE GAJENDRA SINGH
ON THE FIRST OF APRIL, 2025
INCOME TAX APPEAL No.1 of 2025
SHRI NEEL KUMAR AJMERA ALIAS NILESH AJMERA
Versus
PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX INDORE I
Appearance:
Shri Ashish Goyal - Learned counsel for the appellant.
Shri Harsh Parshar - Learned counsel for the Income Tax.
"Reserved on : 11.02.2025"
"Pronounced on : 01.04.2025"
JUDGMENT
Per: Justice Sushrut Arvind Dharmadhikari
Heard on the question of admission.
2. This appeal under Section 260-A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 has
been filed being aggrieved by order dated 23.08.2024 passed by the
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Indore Bench, Indore in ITA
No.234/IND/2024, whereby learned ITAT has dismissed the appeal in
limine on the ground of limitation, whereby the appeal was filed with a
delay of 1797 days.
3. The brief facts of the case are that search and seizure under
Section 132 of the Income Tax Act was carried out and Assessment
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:8489
Order under Section 153A of the Income Tax Act was passed on
30.12.2011 in which the total income was assessed at Rs.65,91,95,580/-.
Being aggrieved by the said order, the appellant filed the appeal before
Commissioner of Income-Tax (Appeals) {in short "CIT(A)"}. The
CIT(A) dismissed the appeal. Being aggrieved, the appellant filed
appeal before the ITAT and vide order dated 17.05.2016, the matter was
remanded back to Assessing Officer on certain grounds for fresh
adjudication. The Assessing Officer passed a fresh order on 27.12.2017.
Again being aggrieved by order dated 27.12.2017 passed by CIT(A), the
appellant preferred an appeal before the CIT(A). The Appellate
Authority dismissed the appeal vide order dated 20.02.2019 for want of
prosecution without adjudicating on the merits of the case on the ground
that on the dates of hearing neither the appellant was present nor filed
any written submission. Being aggrieved by the said order, the appellant
preferred appeal before Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Indore Bench,
Indore on 22.03.2024 with a delay of 1797 days. However, the same has
been dismissed on the ground of limitation vide order dated 20.08.2024.
Hence, this petition.
4. The learned counsel for the appellant submits that earlier, he used
to reside at 29-30 Paliwal Nagar, Indore alongwith the family of his real
brother for the last 15 years. In the income tax record, same address was
disclosed. However, due to misfortune of the appellant, the brother of
the assessee was dragged into various civil and criminal litigations. In
view of the aforesaid, the appellant alongwith the family members were
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:8489
also harassed by various creditors and the Government Department
including death threats. Various criminal cases were also registered
against the appellant. Because of this, the appellant as well as the family
of the appellant had to move to Mumbai. During 2018 to 2024 brother
of the appellant was either missing, absconding or imprisoned. The
appellant in such circumstances could not coordinate properly with his
tax consultants. At no point of time, the appellant received any notice
from the CIT(A) as well as the order passed by the CIT(A) on
20.02.2019. This fact came to the knowledge of the appellant in the
month of year 2024 and thereafter, without causing any delay, appeal
was filed being aggrieved by the order of the CIT(A) before the ITAT
on 22.03.2024. Out of the delay of 1797 days, the delay between
15.03.2020 to 30.05.2022 (period covered by Covid-19 pandemic) and
also looking to the fact that the Apex Court on its own motion in SLP
No.3/2020 had condoned the delay due to Covid-19 pandemic, meaning
thereby only 990 days remained to be explained.
5. Learned counsel for the appellant further submitted that the
appellant filed an application for condonation of delay alongwith an
affidavit in the appeal before the ITAT explaining the aforesaid details
due to which delay occurred. However, the ITAT without considering
the reasons assigned in the application for condonation of delay, rejected
his application and refrained from entering into the merits of the case
and also dismissed the appeal as barred by time.
6. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the delay was
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:8489
not because of any negligence or malafides but due to sufficient cause
which prevented the appellant from filing the appeal in time. It is also
contended that though the delay may be of around 990 days but still the
Appellate Authority ought to have seen the cause behind such delay and
not the length of delay. In support of his contention, he placed reliance
on the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Mool Chandra Vs.
Union of India and another reported in (2025) 1 SCC 625.
7. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent vehemently
opposed the prayer and submitted that no sufficient cause has been
shown by the appellant in explaining the delay caused in filing the
appeal before ITAT, therefore, the appeal deserves to be dismissed on
the ground of delay and laches alone.
8. Heard the learned counsel for the parties.
9. The Supreme Court in the case of Inder Singh Vs. State of
Madhya Pradesh reported in 2025 INSC 382 has held as under:
"There can be no quarrel on the settled
principle of law that delay cannot be
condoned without sufficient cause, but a
major aspect which has to be kept in mind
is that, if in a particular case, the merits
have to be examined, it should not be
scuttled merely on the basis of limitation."
10. Similarly, the Supreme Court in the case of Mool Chandra
(supra), has held as under:
"It is not the length of delay that would be
required to be considered while examining
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:8489
the plea for condonation of delay, it is the
cause for delay which has been
propounded will have to be examined. If
the cause for delay would fall within the
four corners of "sufficient cause",
irrespective of the length of delay same
deserves to be condoned. However, if the
cause shown is insufficient, irrespective of
the period of delay, same would not be
condoned."
11. In the aforesaid case, the Supreme Court has further held as
under:
"if negligence can be attributed to the
appellant, then necessarily the delay
which has not been condoned by the
Tribunal and affirmed by the High Court
deserves to be accepted. However, if no
fault can be laid at the doors of the
appellant and cause shown is sufficient
then we are of the considered view that
both the Tribunal and the High Court were
in error in not adopting a liberal approach
or justice oriented approach to condone
the delay."
12. In view of the aforesaid pronunciation of law as well as after
going through the reasons assigned for delay in filing the appeal, this
Court is of the considered opinion that although a delay cannot be
condoned without sufficient cause but the merits of the case cannot be
discarded solely on the technical grounds of limitation. A liberal
approach should be taken in condoning delays when the limitation
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:8489
ground undermines the merits of the case and obstructs substantial
justice.
13. Hence, this Court finds that the appellant has been able to put
forth "sufficient cause" for the delay in filing the appeal before ITAT.
14. Accordingly, the order dated 23.08.2024 passed by the Income
Tax Appellate Tribunal, Indore Bench, Indore in ITA No.234/IND/2024
is hereby set aside.
15. The delay in filing an appeal before the ITAT is herby condoned.
16. The matter is remanded back to Income Tax Appellate Tribunal,
Indore Bench, Indore and it is directed that the appeal shall be decided
afresh in accordance with law on merits after affording reasonable
opportunity of hearing to both the parties.
17. With aforesaid direction, the present ITA is hereby allowed.
(SUSHRUT ARVIND DHARMADHIKARI) (GAJENDRA SINGH)
JUDGE JUDGE
Shanu
