Devinder Singh Pannu v. The Income-tax Officer, Ward 1(3), Chandigarh - 2020-LL-0727-6

Citation	2020-LL-0727-6
Appellant Name	Devinder Singh Pannu
Respondent Name	The Income-tax Officer, Ward 1(3), Chandigarh
Court	HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA
Relevant Act	Income-tax
Date of Order	27/07/2020
Judgment	View Judgment
Keyword Tags	limitation prescribed • restoration of appeal • statutory remedy • non-prosecution
Bot Summary:	RAKESH KUMAR JAIN, J. The appellant has preferred this appeal under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 for setting aside the order dated 09.01.2017 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Chandigarh in ITA No. 322/CHD/2016 whereby the appeal filed by the appellant was dismissed in default though as per Rule 24 of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal Rules, 1963, the appellate authority was required to decide the appeal on merits. In support of her contentions, counsel for the appellant has relied upon an order passed by the Division Bench of the Delhi High Court in the case of Om Prakash Sangwan Vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward 33(4), New Delhi. 1 of 2 ::: Downloaded on - 30-07-2020 12:35:12 ::: ITA No. 86 of 2020 Page 2 of 2 At this stage, Mr. Yogesh Putney, Advocate has accepted notice on behalf of the respondent and submitted that the appellant has a remedy in view of Rule 24 proviso to approach the Tribunal for restoration of the appeal which was dismissed for non-prosecution. He also referred to the judgment relied upon by the appellant and submitted that in the said case, the Delhi High Court has relegated the then appellant to avail his remedy of filing an application to the Tribunal for the purpose of restoration of the appeal. We have heard counsel for the parties and after perusing the available record are of the considered opinion that the appellant has the statutory remedy of filing an application for restoration of appeal which was dismissed for non-prosecution and in view of Rule 24 of the Rules, there is no period of limitation prescribed within which the aggrieved party can approach the Tribunal for the purpose of restoration. In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances, present appeal has been found misconceived and the same is hereby dismissed as such but the appellant is granted liberty to file an application, if so advised, for restoration of the appeal which has been dismissed in default by the impugned order dated 09.01.2017.

107 IN HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH ITA No. 86 of 2010 (O&M) Date of Decision: 27.07.2020 DEVINDER SINGH PANNU ...Appellant VS. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 1(3), CHANDIGARH, AYAKAR BHAWAN, SECTOR 17, CHANDIGARH. .Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAKESH KUMAR JAIN. HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK KUMAR VERMA Present: Ms. Munisha Gandhi, Senior Advocate with Mr. Viraj Gandhi, Advocate, for appellant. *** RAKESH KUMAR JAIN, J. (Oral) appellant has preferred this appeal under Section 260A of Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short Act ) for setting aside order dated 09.01.2017 passed by Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Chandigarh in ITA No. 322/CHD/2016 whereby appeal filed by appellant was dismissed in default though as per Rule 24 of Income Tax Appellate Tribunal Rules, 1963 (for short Rules ), appellate authority was required to decide appeal on merits. In support of her contentions, counsel for appellant has relied upon order passed by Division Bench of Delhi High Court in case of Om Prakash Sangwan Vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward 33(4), New Delhi. [2018] 94 taxmann.com 394 (Delhi). Notice of motion. 1 of 2 ::: Downloaded on - 30-07-2020 12:35:12 ::: ITA No. 86 of 2020 (O&M) Page 2 of 2 At this stage, Mr. Yogesh Putney, Advocate has accepted notice on behalf of respondent and submitted that appellant has remedy in view of Rule 24 proviso to approach Tribunal for restoration of appeal which was dismissed for non-prosecution. He also referred to judgment relied upon by appellant and submitted that in said case, Delhi High Court has relegated then appellant to avail his remedy of filing application to Tribunal for purpose of restoration of appeal. We have heard counsel for parties and after perusing available record are of considered opinion that appellant has statutory remedy of filing application for restoration of appeal which was dismissed for non-prosecution and in view of Rule 24 of Rules, there is no period of limitation prescribed within which aggrieved party can approach Tribunal for purpose of restoration. In view of aforesaid facts and circumstances, present appeal has been found misconceived and same is hereby dismissed as such but appellant is granted liberty to file application, if so advised, for restoration of appeal which has been dismissed in default by impugned order dated 09.01.2017. [ RAKESH KUMAR JAIN] JUDGE July 27, 2020 [ ASHOK KUMAR VERMA] Ess Kay JUDGE Whether speaking / reasoned : Yes / No Whether Reportable : Yes / No 2 of 2 ::: Downloaded on - 30-07-2020 12:35:12 ::: Devinder Singh Pannu v. Income-tax Officer, Ward 1(3), Chandigarh

Metadata

Judgment