2020 (1) TMI 564 - HC - Income Tax

Condonation of delay filing an appeal before ITAT - Stay petition - petitioner for recovery of the amounts confirmed by rectification order - Deduction / Exemption u/s 80P - HELD THAT - On a consideration of the facts and circumstances of the case as also the submissions made across the Bar and taking note of the fact that in similar matters, this Court has directed the Appellate Authority to consider and pass orders in the appeal and stayed the recovery of disputed amounts pending disposal of the appeal. Taking note of the fact that delay occassioned in filing the appeal before the 3rd respondent is only 20 days, deem it appropriate to condone the delay, and dispose this Writ petition with a direction to the 3rd respondent to consider and pass orders on Ext.P4 appeal within an outer time limit of six months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. Recovery steps for recovery of amounts confirmed against the petitioner by Ext.P3 rectification order shall be kept in abeyance till such time as orders are passed by the 3rd respondent as directed above and communicated to the petitioner. The petitioner shall produce a copy of the writ petition together with a copy of this judgment, before the 3rd respondent, for further action.

Summary

Issues:
1. Appeal against rectification order under the Income Tax Act.
2. Delay condonation petition.
3. Stay petition for recovery steps.
4. Disallowance of deduction claimed under Section 80P of the Income Tax Act.

Analysis:
1. The petitioner filed an appeal (Ext.P4) against the rectification order (Ext.P3) under the Income Tax Act, along with a delay condonation petition (Ext.P5) and a stay petition before the 3rd respondent. The issue in the appeal relates to the disallowance of deduction claimed under Section 80P of the Income Tax Act.

2. The High Court, after hearing both parties, considered the circumstances and previous rulings. It noted that in similar cases, the Court had directed the Appellate Authority to decide on the appeal and stayed the recovery of disputed amounts. The Court, taking into account a delay of only 20 days in filing the appeal, decided to condone the delay. The Court directed the 3rd respondent to decide on the appeal within six months from the date of the judgment. It ordered that recovery steps for the confirmed amounts against the petitioner shall be halted until the 3rd respondent's decision is communicated.

3. The Court emphasized that the petitioner must present a copy of the writ petition along with the judgment to the 3rd respondent for further action. This comprehensive judgment ensures procedural fairness and provides a clear directive for the timely resolution of the appeal while safeguarding the petitioner from immediate recovery actions.