IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. ITA No. 657 of 2009 Date of Decision: April 21, 2010 M/s Paras Rice Mills, Kurukshetra …Appellant Versus Commissioner of Income Tax, Karnal and another …Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.M. KUMAR HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE JITENDRA CHAUHAN Present: Mr. Avneesh Jhingan, Advocate, for the appellant. Mr. Yogesh Putney, Advocate, for the respondents. 1. To be referred to the Reporters or not? 2. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? M.M. KUMAR, J. The instant appeal filed under Section 260-A of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (for brevity, ‘the Act’) is directed against order dated 25.5.2009 (A-5), passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Chandigarh Bench (B), Chandigarh (for brevity, ‘the Tribunal’), dismissing the application filed by the appellant seeking condonation of delay of 242 days. According to the averments made in the application, the appellant had mistakenly availed the remedy of appeal before the Regular Appellate Authority i.e. CIT (A) Karnal where it had filed an appeal on 21.11.2006 against the order dated 31.10.2006 passed by the Assessing Officer under Section 144 of the Act. The CIT (A) rejected the appeal for lack of jurisdiction, vide order dated 20.6.2007. Thereafter the appeal was preferred under Section 253 of the Act before the Tribunal on 18.8.2007. For the period the appeal was pending before ITA No. 657 of 2009 the CIT (A) Karnal, delay of 242 days had occurred for which an application for condonation of delay was filed. The Tribunal has been clothed with the power to condone the delay under Section 253(5) of the Act, if sufficient cause is shown for not presenting the appeal within the period prescribed. The basis of the rejection of the appeal by refusing to condone the delay is that there is no bona fide reason disclosed for condonation of delay. However, no satisfaction with regard to the plea raised by the appellant in its application has been recorded. Keeping in view the fact that the appellant was pursuing the remedy at a wrong forum in a bona fide belief that the appeal was competent before the CIT (A) Karnal, the Tribunal should have condoned the delay. It is evident that the aforesaid course was adopted by the appellant without any ill intention to avail any benefit. The delay in filing the appeal before the Tribunal for the period spent on pursuing the remedy before a wrong forum should have been condoned by the Tribunal. Accordingly, we record the satisfaction that there was a bona fide mistake in pursuing remedy before the CIT (A) Karnal, which has caused the delay in filing the appeal before the Tribunal to the extent of 242 days. Even otherwise, right of one appeal is the principle prevalent in all jurisdictions. Therefore, the instant appeal is allowed. The order dated 25.5.2009 (A-5) passed by the Tribunal is set aside and a direction is issued to the Tribunal to entertain the appeal and decide the same on merit. (M.M. KUMAR) JUDGE (JITENDRA CHAUHAN) April 21, 2010 JUDGE Pkapoor 2