ARUMAKKATTUKUDI VASU SREENIVAS,KALADY V. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 2(4), KOCHI, KOCHI

ITA 1069/COCH/2024

AI Insights

The case involves an appeal by Arumakkattukudi Vasu Sreenivas against an order from the National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi, concerning the Assessment Year 2015-16. The appeal was dismissed due to a significant delay of 343 days in filing the appeal. The appellant claimed ignorance of the CIT(A)'s order, which was allegedly served via email and went unnoticed. The tribunal found the appellant's reasons for the delay unconvincing, noting the lack of specific details about the tax consultant and the email service. The tribunal referenced a decision by the Hon'ble Madras High Court and a Supreme Court judgment emphasizing the importance of the law of limitation in ensuring the finality of legal disputes.

• Counselvise Citation: [2025] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 474715 (ITAT-COCHIN)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 12-02-2025
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: DB
• Assessment Year: 2015-2016
• Other Referred Cases: Jak Communications (P) Ltd. v. Deputy Commercial Tax Officer, Pathapati Subba Reddy (Died) by L.Rs. & Ors. v. The Special Deputy Collector (LA)
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: LEENA LAL
• Keywords: Condonation of delay; Period of limitation

Judgement Text

" IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL COCHIN BENCH BEFORE SHRI INTURI RAMA RAO, AM ITA No. 1069/Coch/2024 Assessment Year: 2015-16 Arumakkattukudi Vasu Sreenivas .......... Appellant Arumakattukudi House Ashramam Road, Kalady 683574 [PAN: AYSPS1428A] vs. The Income Tax Officer .......... Respondent Ward - 2(4), Kochi Appellant by: ------- None ------- Respondent by: Smt. Leena Lal, Sr. D.R. Date of Hearing: 04.02.2025 Date of Pronouncement: 12.02.2025 O R D E R This appeal filed by the assessee is directed against the order of the National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi [CIT(A)] dated 13.11.2023 for Assessment Year (AY) 2015-16. 2. At the outset we find that there is a delay in filing the appeal by 343 days. The appellant had filed petition seeking condonation of delay on the ground that the appellant had no knowledge of the order passed by the CIT(A) as the order was served through email which went unnoticed by the appellant. It is only when the Tax Consultant of the appellant searched the portal in December 2024 the appellant had come to know 2 ITA No. 1069/Coch/2024 Arumakkattukudi Vasu Sreenivas about the order passed by the CIT(A). Thus, it is prayed that the delay in filing the appeal may be condoned adopting a liberal approach. 3. I have perused the averments made in the petition seeking condonation of delay. The averment that the appellant had no knowledge of the order passed by the CIT(A) is general in nature. The appellant also not given details as to the name of the Tax Consultant, who searched the portal in December, 2024 and also the email ID on which the order of the CIT(A) was served. It is not possible to believe that the appellant had not searched the email for one year. The ratio of the decision of the Hon’ble Madras High Court in the case of Jak Communications (P) Ltd. v. Deputy Commercial Tax Officer WP No. 35453 of 2023 is not applicable, as it was a case of no service of order though email. Thus, I find that the reasons offered for delay in filing the appeal are not convincing. The appellant has not explained the reasons for the delay. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Pathapati Subba Reddy (Died) by L.Rs. & Ors. v. The Special Deputy Collector (LA) [2024] 4 S.C.R. 241 : 2024 INSC 286 us under: - “7. The law of limitation is founded on public policy. It is enshrined in the legal maxim “interest reipublicae ut sit finis litium” i.e. it is for the general welfare that a period of limitation be put to litigation. The object is to put an end to every legal remedy and to have a fixed period of life for every litigation as it is futile to keep any litigation or dispute pending indefinitely. Even public policy requires that there should be an end to the litigation otherwise it would be a dichotomy if the litigation is made immortal vis-a-vis the litigating parties i.e. human beings, who are mortals.” Therefore, it is not a fit case for condonation of delay. 3 ITA No. 1069/Coch/2024 Arumakkattukudi Vasu Sreenivas 4. In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee stands dismissed. 5. Order pronounced in the open court on 12th February, 2025. Sd/- (INTURI RAMA RAO) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Cochin, Dated: 12th February, 2025 n.p. Copy to: 1. The Appellant 2. The Respondent 3. The Pr. CIT concerned 4. The Sr. DR, ITAT, Cochin 5. Guard File Assistant Registrar ITAT, Cochin "