Thekkumbhagam Service Co-op Bank Ltd, Idukki V. The ITO Ward 1, Thodupuzha

ITA 166/COCH/2023

• Counselvise Citation: [2023] 102 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 0847 (ITAT-COCHIN)
• Duration Of Justice: 7 month(s) 12 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 10-10-2023
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: DB
• Next Hearing Date: 06-09-2023
• Assessment Year: 2011-2012
• Appeal Filed On: 28-02-2023
• Result in Favour of: Matter Remanded
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Keywords: Condonation of delay
• Section: 147; 143(3)

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL COCHIN BENCH, COCHIN Before Shri Sanjay Arora, AM & Shri Manomohan Das, JM ITA No.166/Coch/2023: Asst.Year: 2011-2012 Thekkumbhagam Service Co- operative Bank Limited No.E-31, Thekkumbhagom PO Thodupuzha, Idukki District Pin 685 585 [PAN: AAAAT3266C] vs. The Income Tax Officer Ward 1, Thozupuzha. (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant by: Sri.Mathew Joseph, CA Respondent by: Smt.J.M.Jamuna Devi, Sr.DR Date of Hearing : 07.09.2023 Date of Pronouncement: 11.10.2023 O R D E R Per Sanjay Arora, AM: The instant Appeal by the Assessee agitates the Order dated 08.12.2022 by the Commissioner of Income-Tax (Appeals), NFAC, Delhi, dismissing the assessee’s appeal contesting it’s assessment under section 147 read with section 143(3) of the Income-Tax Act, 1961 (the Act) dated 19.12.2016 for assessment year 2011-2012. 2. The appeal, filed on 01.03.2023, is delayed a period of 23 days. The reasons for the same, as averred in the sworn affidavit dated 27.02.2023 by Sri.Baiju V.T., Secretary, who is also the Principal Officer verifying the appeal, on record,is that the impugned order, received by the assessee-bank per email, was not noticed by the staff, and it came to know of it only on a phone call from the Office of the Assessing Officer (AO). The same, strictly speaking, cannot per se be regarded as a sufficient cause. We yet regard it as a fit case for condonation of delay in the conspectus of the case. The orders received on email, are generally missed by the bank staff where the ITA No.166/Coch/2023 (AY 2011-2012) T h e k k um b ha g a m S C B L t d. v . I T O 2 working is not wholly computerized, as we generally find to be the case. Further it, on notice, acted with alacrity. We accordingly admit the appeal. (also see para 3) 3. The impugned order is an in limine dismissal of the assessee’s appeal, being, again, delayed by 7 days. The same stands explained as due to unavailability of the Counsel, Sri.V.V.Thomas, being out of station for a couple of days, with further delay being caused due to public holiday on January 26, 2017 and the server down of the Department being down for upgradation till January 28, 2017 morning 5 AM. The Hon’ble Apex Court in Collector, Land Acquisition v. Mst. Katiji[1987] 167 ITR 471 (SC) explained that the expression “sufficient cause” employed by the Legislature (s. 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963) is adequately elastic to enable the courts to apply the law in a meaningful manner which sub-serves the ends of justice – that being the life-purpose of the existence of the institution of courts. The doctrine is to be applied in a rational, common sense and pragmatic manner. A justifiably liberal approach is to be adopted, also drawing distinction between marginal and inordinate large delays, eschewing prejudice being caused to either side. The first appellate authority ought to have, we think, taken a more liberal view in the matter. We, accordingly, setting aside the impugned order, restore the proceedings to the file of the ld.CIT(A), who shall admit the assessee’s appeal and adjudicate it on merits after hearing the parties thereon. We decide accordingly. 4. In the result, the assessee’s appeal is allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced on October11, 2023 under Rule 34 of The Income Tax (Appellate Tribunal) Rules, 1963 Sd/- (Manomohan Das) Sd/- (Sanjay Arora) Judicial Member Accountant Member Cochin; Dated: October11, 2023 Devadas G* ITA No.166/Coch/2023 (AY 2011-2012) T h e k k um b ha g a m S C B L t d. v . I T O 3 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