(O&M)Jagjiwan Lal v. C.I.T., Ludhiana
! "## $ # %& '(
)
*$ +$ * ,
& -$ !
+$ !.
-'$& !
+$ - '$ /( 0 $& -$ -
'
/
' $ - 2 #
% & 32 4$ ($ 5 3256
,
$ $
46 /. # %
& "( $( 7 ( 575
2328"( 89 $
$ /$
'$ # 3
#' )&8&
$ ' $ - 46 32
$ $ (
#
2 46 :
$
$
2&
2 /.
" 46 (
32 46
$ /
( "'$ /. $
(
";* < 2392
/.
& ! $
2 436 / '$'
GAURAV ARORA 2023.05.01 12:00 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/document P&H HC, Chandigarh
$
(
' - / " 46 $
$ ' .
# 9 46 (
$$
329 426 !
496 ( /
(
# & !
$
=
# $ $
2&
$ '
$' . $ $
2 ";* < 3 2 (
";* < 32
$ / #
( /
$
!
'
$. $ .
(
$
$
( $
$ ( "'$ /. ";* < 2392
/ #
!
$
2 $
' $
/!
2 /.
( "'$ &
$ $ $$
&
# !
# ' $ $
46
!
$ $
' $
8.
We have given on careful consideration to the rival contentions. In this case, the assessee has consciously withdrawn the appeal before the Commissioner of Income Tax(A) and approached the Hon'ble High Court for appropriate relief under its writ jurisdiction. Subsequently, the writ petition has also been withdrawn by the assessee for unstated reasons. The Commissioner of Income-Tax(A) was approached u/s 154 claiming a mistake in his order and requesting for restoration of appeal. The said request was not acceded to by the Commissioner of Income Tax (A) on the ground that there was no mistake in his earlier order and, therefore, the power vested in him u/s 154 could not be exercised.
It is clarified that the assessee is not in appeal against the decision of the Commissioner of Income Tax(A) in rejecting the application of the assessee u/s 154. The assessee has filed the present appeal against the original order passed by the Commissioner of Income Tax (A) on assessee's application seeking permission to withdraw the appeal. There is a delay of 196 days in filing this appeal against the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax-(A) As pointed out earlier the only reason given by the assessee for the delay in filing the appeal against the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (A) is that the assessee had approached the Hon'ble High court by way of writ petition which has resulted in delay in filing of the appeal.
In our considered view, there is no satisfactory cause or the delay in filing of appeal against the decision of the Commissioner of Income tax (A) permitting withdrawal of appeal as requested by the assessee. The assessee has chosen alternative remedy by way of writ petition and for that purpose, has withdrawn the appeal before the Commissioner of Income Tax (A). The Commissioner of Income Tax (A) did not commit any mistake by acceding to the request of the assessee. Having spent more than six months from the date of order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (A) in pursuing the remedy from the High Court, the assessee has now turn around and filed an appeal against the earlier order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (A).
The delay is attributable to the assessee's own decision for pursuing a remedy before the Hon'ble High Court in comparison to the statutory remedy available to him by way of appeal to the Commissioner o Income Tax(A). In fact, the appeal had been filed before the Commissioner of Income Tax (A) against the order of the Assessing Officer which appeal was later on withdrawn. There is no justifiable explanation for the delay in filing of the present appeal against the decision of the Commissioner of Income Tax(A). Moreover, the assessee has not been able to point out any infirmity in the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (A) in having allowed the assessee to withdraw the appeal.
9. Taking the totality of the facts and circumstances of the case into consideration, we are of the considered view that it is not a fit case for condonation of delay in filing of the appeal against the decision of the
Commissioner of Income Tax (A) in having allowed withdrawal of appeal filed by the assessee. We accordingly dismiss the appeal of the assessee as not entertained.
10. In the result the appeal of the assessee is dismissed."
/!
$& !
$.
#
&
$ " 46
32&
!
.
%
$
.
" 46 +$ !
'
. $# . $ " 46 /.
'$ $ /
/ $!
$
$ " 46 ' $ - #
#
, ( $ $ >'
$ $ $
( " 46 #
$
" 46 $
(
$ /. " 46
?
, $#
(
. 32 .
$ " 46
#
23 '/
>'
!"# $"%
&
'
( &
$ '
'
. $# . /.
:'$
. # $'
# # $ (
'$ $ #
)&8 3 (
@ $ #
' $ - 46 # % )9&3&98 (
$ $ '# 4 26& ! "+ < 23"
'#
$
( '
$ $ " 46
/
(
# ' $ $ ( $( . / $!
#$
% # ( $#
$ $ " 46 '$' ( $ .
.
$/'
? $ '$' .
=( "'$ ( '
%
$
.
-
#
. / , 23
$#
. /.
( "'$ & '/
>'
$ $
# (RITU BAHRI) JUDGE (MANISHA BATRA) JUDGE 11.04.2023 G Arora Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes/No Whether reportable : Yes/No