CLASSIC PHARMA,ALAPPUZHA V. ITO, WARD 2, ALAPPUZHA

ITA 815/COCH/2024

AI Insights

The case involves Classic Pharma, a company based in Alappuzha, which appealed against the order of the CIT(A)/NFAC concerning the assessment year 2017-18. The primary issue was the dismissal of their appeal by the CIT(A)/NFAC due to a delay of 145 days in filing the appeal, which was not condoned by the CIT(A)/NFAC on the grounds that the assessee did not discharge the onus of 'sufficient cause' as required under section 249 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The Tribunal, referencing the principles laid down by the Apex Court in the case of Collector Land Acquisition v. Mst. Katiji and Ors., decided to condone the delay, emphasizing the preference for substantial justice over technical considerations.

• Counselvise Citation: [2025] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 126700 (ITAT-COCHIN)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 24-04-2025
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Partly Allowed
• Bench Allotted: DB
• Assessment Year: 2017-2018
• Other Referred Cases: Collector Land Acquisition v. Mst. Katiji and Ors. (167 ITR 471)
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act, 1961
• Result in Favour of: Partly Allowed
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: LEENA LAL
• Assessee Lawyers: R. KRISHNAN
• Keywords: Condonation of delay; Opportunity of being heard
• Section: 250

Judgement Text

"ITA No.815/Coch/2024 Classic Pharma, Alappuzha IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL COCHIN BENCH:COCHIN BEFORE SHRI INTURI RAMA RAO, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI KESHAV DUBEY, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA No.815/Coch/2024 AssessmentYear:2017-18 Classic Pharma 42/672B, Civil Station Ward Alappuzha 688 001 Kerala PAN NO :AAKFC0215F Vs. NFAC Delhi APPELLANT RESPONDENT Appellant by : Shri R. Krishnan, A.R. Respondent by : Smt. Leena Lal, Sr. D.R. Date of Hearing : 30.01.2025 Date of Pronouncement : 24.04.2025 O R D E R PERKESHAV DUBEY, JUDICIAL MEMBER: This appeal at the instance of assessee is directed against the order of the ld. CIT(A)/NFAC dated 20.8.2024 vide DIN & Order No.ITBA/NFAC/S/250/2024-25/1067776481(1)for the AY 2017-18 passed u/s 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short “The Act”). 2. The assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal: ITA No.815/Coch/2024 Classic Pharma, Alappuzha Page 2 of 4 2. Before us, both the parties fairly conceded that there is a delay of 145 days in filing the appeal before the ld. CIT(A), which is not condoned by the ld. CIT(A) on the ground that the assessee has not discharged the onus of “sufficient cause” within the meaning of section 249 of the Act.Hence, the delay in filing of appeal more than 4 months was not accepted by the ld. CIT(A)/NFAC and accordingly, ITA No.815/Coch/2024 Classic Pharma, Alappuzha Page 3 of 4 without going into the merits of the case dismissed the appeal of the assessee. 3. We have heard the rival submissions and perused the materials available on record. On going through the grounds for condonation of delay filed before the CIT(A)/NFAC, in our opinion, it cannot be said that assessee is very callous in its approach in filing the appeal before the ld. CIT(A). At this juncture, it is appropriate to mention the judgement of Apex Court in the case of Collector Land Acquisition v. Mst. Katiji and Ors. (167 ITR 471) laid down six principles. For the purpose of convenience, the principles laid down by the Apex Court are reproduced hereunder: (1) Ordinarily, a litigant does not stand to benefit by lodging an appeal late (2) Refusing to condone delay can result in a meritorious matter being thrown at the very threshold and cause of justice being defeated. As against this, when delay is condoned, the highest that can happen is that a cause would be decided on merits after hearing the parties. (3) 'Every day's delay must be explained' does not mean that a pedantic approach should be made. Why not every hour's delay, every second's delay? The doctrine must be applied in a rational, commonsense and pragmatic manner. (4) When substantial justice and technical consideration are pitted against each other, the cause of substantial justice deserves to be preferred, for the other side cannot claim to have vested right in injustice being done because of a non-deliberate delay. (5) There is no presumption that delay is occasioned deliberately, or on account of culpable negligence, or on account of mala fides. A litigant does not stand to benefit by resorting to delay. In fact, he runs a serious risk. (6) It must be grasped that the judiciary is respected not on account of its power to legalise injustice on technical grounds but because it is capable of removing injustice and is expected to do so. ITA No.815/Coch/2024 Classic Pharma, Alappuzha Page 4 of 4 3.1 Being so, when substantial justice and technical consideration are pitted against each other, the cause of substantial justice deserve to be preferred for the other side and claimed to have vested right for injustice doing so because of non-deliberate delay. 4. This being so, we condone the delay in filing the appeal before the ld. CIT(A)/NFAC and direct the ld. CIT(A)/NFAC to admit the appeal for adjudication and accordingly we remit the entire issue in dispute to the file of ld. CIT(A)/NFAC to decide afresh in accordance with the law. Needless to say, reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee must be granted to the assessee. It is ordered accordingly. 5. In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced in the open court on 24th Apr, 2025 Sd/- (Inturi Rama Rao) Accountant Member Sd/- (Keshav Dubey) JudicialMember Bangalore, Dated 24th Apr, 2025. VG/SPS Copy to: 1. The Applicant 2. The Respondent 3. The CIT 4. The DR, ITAT, Bangalore. 5 Guard file By order Asst. Registrar, ITAT, Cochin. "