Patna High Court
Happy Science Bodhgaya India vs The Principle Chief Commissioner on 19 June, 2025
Author: Rajeev Ranjan Prasad
Bench: Rajeev Ranjan Prasad, Ashok Kumar Pandey
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.1202 of 2025
======================================================
Happy Science Bodhgaya India, Mahamaya Palace Hotel and Conference
Center, Bakraur is registered under the Trust having Registered office at
Bakrour-824231, Bihar through its General Secretary Sudama Kumar,
Gender- Male, Age about-53 years, son of Mangal Chand Prasad, Resident of
Mahamaya Palace Hotel, Village- Bakraur, P.S- Bodhgaya and District- Gaya
... ... Petitioner
Versus
1. The Principle Chief Commissioner, Income Tax, Central Revenue Building,
Virchand Patel Path, Patna.
2. The Principal Commissioner/Commissioner-2, Income Tax, Central Revenue
Building, Veerchand Patel Path, Patna.
3. The Commissioner of Income Tax, National Faceless Appeal Center
(NFAC), Income Tax Department, New Delhi.
4. The Commissioner of Income Tax, Exemption, Central Revenue Building,
Virchand Patel Path, Patna
5. The Income Tax Officer, Exemption, Ward-1, Patna.
... ... Respondents
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner : Mr. Krishna Mohan Mishra, Advocate
Mr. Ashok Kumar, Advocate
Mr. Prasoon Kumar, Advocate
For the Respondents : Ms. Archana Sinha @ Archana Shahi, Senior SC
Mr. Alok Kumar, Advocate
Ms. Richa Rajeev, Advocate
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJEEV RANJAN PRASAD
and
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK KUMAR PANDEY
ORAL JUDGMENT
(Per: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJEEV RANJAN PRASAD)
Date : 19-06-2025
Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned
Senior Standing Counsel for the Department of Income Tax.
2. The petitioner in the present writ application has
prayed for the following reliefs:-
"i. To issue appropriate writs/orders
and/or direction in the nature of writ of
Patna High Court CWJC No.1202 of 2025 dt.19-06-2025
2/10
certiorari to quash and set aside the
order dated 27.11.2024 (annexure-P/1)
whereby and where under the
Commissioner of Income Tax, Appeal,
NFAC dismissed the appeal in limine
on the ground of limitation without
considering the limitation petition
which filed by the petitioner along with
memo of appeal dated 03.06.2019 and
the order passed by the Hon'ble Apex
Court in SLP No. 11840 of 2019
wherein the Hon'ble Apex Court has
condoned the delay in filing appeal.
ii. To hold and declare that the order of
dismissal of appeal passed by the ld.
Commissioner, Income Tax, NFAC on
the ground of limitation is bad and
illegal in view of the fact that the
Hon'ble Apex Court has passed order
in SLP No. 11840 of 2019 dated
10.05.2019
whereby and wherein the
Hon’ble Apex Court had extended the
period of limitation for four weeks
from 10.05.2019 and the said appeal
was filed within the period of four
week along with limitation petition.
iii. To hold and declare that the order of
dismissal of appeal in limine is
otherwise bad and illegal in view of the
fact that the appellant had filed
limitation petition along with memo of
appeal, as such, order passed by the ld.
CIT, Appeal is illegal and arbitrary and
Patna High Court CWJC No.1202 of 2025 dt.19-06-2025
3/10
also against the principle of natural
justice.
iv. To issue any other writ/writs,
order/orders, direction/directions as
your honour deemed fit and proper.”
Brief Facts of the Case
3. The petitioner is a charitable trust and its main aims
and objects are to act for charity and religious purposes. It is
registered from the office of the District Registration Office at
Gaya. The petitioner filed its return of income for the assessment
year 2016-17 showing therein ‘NIL taxable income’ as the income
of the petitioner was exempted from levy of tax. The return was
selected for scrutiny under Section 143(2) of the Income Tax Act
(hereinafter referred to as the ‘I.T. Act‘). Pursuant to the notice, the
petitioner appeared before the Assessing Officer. The Assessing
Officer passed an order of assessment against the petitioner and a
demand of Rs.45,43,423/- has been raised. Notice of demand
under Section 156 of the I.T. Act is Annexure ‘P/4’ to the writ
application.
4. Thereafter, the petitioner filed a writ application being
CWJC No. 1778 of 2019 before this Court wherein the validity of
assessment and creation of demand were questioned. The said writ
application was disposed of by an Hon’ble Division Bench of this
Patna High Court CWJC No.1202 of 2025 dt.19-06-2025
4/10
Court vide judgment dated 10.04.2019. While disposing of the writ
application, this Hon’ble Court noticed that during pendency of the
matter, the period of limitation had expired, therefore, the Hon’ble
Division Bench held that if the petitioner chooses to file an appeal
within four weeks together with a petition for condonation of
delay, the Appellate Authority i.e. the Commissioner, Income Tax
(Appeal) shall consider and dispose of the same in accordance
with law on its own merits bearing in mind the pendency of matter
before this Court.
5. The petitioner preferred a Petition for Special Leave
to Appeal (C) No. 11840 of 2019 before the Hon’ble Supreme
Court but could not succeed. The Hon’ble Supreme Court agreed
with the view of the High Court but extended the time which was
granted by the High Court for pursuing the alternative remedies by
a further period of four weeks. The order dated 10.05.2019 passed
in Petition for Special Leave to Appeal (C) No. 11840 of 2019 is
available at Annexure ‘P/6’ to the writ application.
6. It is the case of the petitioner that the petitioner filed
appeal against the order of assessment before the Appellate
Authority on 03.06.2019 i.e. well within a period of four weeks
granted by the Hon’ble Supreme Court. The petitioner also filed a
limitation petition and supplied the copy of the judgments of the
Patna High Court CWJC No.1202 of 2025 dt.19-06-2025
5/10
Hon’ble Supreme Court and that of the Hon’ble High Court to the
Commissioner of Income Tax, Appeal-1. The petitioner has
pointed out in paragraph ‘9’ of the writ application that on perusal
of Form 35 (Memo of Appeal) filed online on Income Tax portal, it
would appear that in Row Nos. 14 and 15 of Form 35, the
appellant has briefly stated regarding delay in filing of the appeal
and also referred Writ Petition No. 1778 of 2019 filed before the
High Court and SLP (C) No. 11840 of 2019 filed before the
Hon’ble Supreme Court.
7. It is the case of the petitioner that the appeal filed by
the petitioner remained pending since June, 2019 and in the
meantime, the I.T. Act was amended and the case of the petitioner
was transferred to the National Faceless Appeal Center (NFAC).
Pursuant to the notice under Section 250 of the I.T. Act from the
NFAC, the petitioner filed a written submission and paperbook
along with additional evidence before the Commissioner of
Income Tax, Appeal (CIT, Appeal) but the grievance of the
petitioner is that the Appellate Authority CIT Appeal, NFAC has
dismissed the appeal on the ground of limitation holding that there
is a huge delay of 137 days and the appellant has not filed petition
for condonation of delay.
Patna High Court CWJC No.1202 of 2025 dt.19-06-2025
6/10
Submissions on behalf of the Petitioner
8. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that it is a
case in which the Appellate Authority seems to have acted in a
routine and mechanical manner without looking into the records
otherwise he would not have held that the appellant has not filed
petition for condonation of delay. It is reiterated in paragraph ’13’
of the writ application that the petitioner had already filed
limitation petition along with memo of appeal wherein it was
categorically stated that the Hon’ble Apex Court and the Hon’ble
High Court has extended the period of limitation in their respective
orders, as such, the appeal may be treated within time.
9. It is submitted that it is a gross case of dereliction in
duty by the Appellate Authority which has caused immense
hardship to the petitioner by compelling him to once again
approach this Court by way of a writ petition. This has also
burdened the petitioner with the cost of litigation besides wastage
of time and energy.
10. Learned counsel submits that the impugned order
which is passed by the Appellate Authority is liable to be quashed
and the petitioner is entitled for cost of litigation.
Patna High Court CWJC No.1202 of 2025 dt.19-06-2025
7/10
Stand of the Respondents
11. A counter affidavit has been filed in which while
answering paragraph ’13’ of the writ application, statements have
been made in paragraph ‘9’ of the counter affidavit. There is no
denial of the fact that the petitioner had filed an application
seeking condonation of delay. The stand of the Respondents is that
the Hon’ble High Court had not granted any period of limitation
but only stated that since the matter before the Court has taken
away the period of limitation, he was allowed four weeks time to
file appeal before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeal) who
will consider and dispose of the same in accordance with law on
its own merit.
12. When the matter was taken up for consideration day
before yesterday, noticing the kind of pleadings present on the
record, this Court called upon learned Senior Standing Counsel for
the Department to seek instruction from the competent authority as
it appeared to this Court that the CIT (A), NAFC had completely
ignored the judgments of the Hon’ble Supreme Court and this
Court. This Court was of the prima-facie view that the action of
the CIT (A) in passing the impugned order is a disobedience and
disregard shown to the order of the Hon’ble Supreme Court as
Patna High Court CWJC No.1202 of 2025 dt.19-06-2025
8/10
well as that of this Court, therefore, it may be taken as
contemptuous.
13. Today, when the matter has been taken up for
consideration, the learned Senior Standing Counsel for the
Department has submitted on instruction that it seems to be a case
in which the CIT (A) has apparently erred in passing the impugned
order without taking into consideration the application seeking
condonation of delay and by not looking into the judgment of the
Hon’ble Supreme Court and the High Court. It is, however,
submitted that the order was passed by NAFC, therefore, it is
difficult to find out the officer who seems to have passed the
impugned order. In fact, the submission of learned Senior Standing
Counsel is that the impugned order may be set aside and the matter
be remitted to the Appellate Authority for a fresh consideration
within a time frame. It is submitted that the Appellate Authority
shall give a physical hearing to the petitioner.
Consideration
14. This Court having noticed the submissions
hereinabove, has no hesitation in recording that this seems to be a
case of gross negligence if not a case of dereliction in duty. The
CIT (A) at NAFC who passed the order has acted without looking
into the records. At such a high position where he is required to
Patna High Court CWJC No.1202 of 2025 dt.19-06-2025
9/10
consider each and every aspect of the matter in appeal, it is
difficult to believe that an officer at his level would act in such a
manner that it would result in causing hardship to the assessee and
multiply the litigation. This Court is confining it’s observations
with regard to the order impugned in the present writ application
only.
15. In the admitted position, this Court sets aside the
impugned order as contained in Annexure ‘P/1’ to the writ
application and directs the CIT (A) to consider the appeal afresh
keeping in view the judgments of the Hon’ble Supreme Court and
that of this Court as discussed above. The CIT (A) has offered to
give a personal hearing to the petitioner which must be given and a
reasoned order be passed within a period of three months from the
date of receipt/production of a copy of this order.
16. We would have left the matter here but the
submission of learned counsel for the petitioner that it is a gross
case which has resulted in causing hardship to the petitioner and
the petitioner has been compelled to incur cost of litigation, cannot
be ignored. We fully agree with the contention of the learned
counsel for the petitioner that the manner in which the impugned
order has been passed has caused hardship to the petitioner and it
has also resulted in incurring litigation expenses.
Patna High Court CWJC No.1202 of 2025 dt.19-06-2025
10/10
17. In the facts of the present case, we, therefore, direct
the Department of Income Tax/Respondents to pay a cost of
Rs.10,000/- to the petitioner within a period of four weeks from
today. It is open to the Department to realise the cost amount from
the erring officer in accordance with law.
18. This writ application stands disposed of accordingly.
(Rajeev Ranjan Prasad, J)
(Ashok Kumar Pandey, J)
lekhi/-
AFR/NAFR CAV DATE Uploading Date 20.06.2025 Transmission Date