KANIYATH POOTHAKANDY SURENDRAN,KUNNAMANGALAM V. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 2(3) KOZHIKODE, KOZHIKODE

ITA 356/COCH/2025

AI Insights

The case involves Kaniyath Poothakandy Surendran, the appellant, contesting an order from the National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi, for the Assessment Year 2014-15. The appellant sought condonation for a 382-day delay in filing the appeal, attributing it to the exploration of settling the dispute under the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme 2024. However, the scheme's application was rejected as no dispute was pending before the CIT(A). The Income Tax Officer, Ward-2, Kozhikode, was the respondent. The tribunal, led by Shri Inturi Rama Rao, AM, dismissed the appeal based on the principles of limitation, emphasizing the need for timely legal action.

• Counselvise Citation: [2025] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 668804 (ITAT-COCHIN)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 23-06-2025
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: SMC
• Assessment Year: 2014-2015
• Other Referred Cases: Pundlilk Jalam Patil (dead) by LRs vs. Executive Engineer Jalgaon Medium Project [2008] 17 SCC 448
• Laws Referred To: Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme 2024
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: LEENA LAL
• Keywords: Condonation of delay

Judgement Text

" IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL COCHIN BENCH BEFORE SHRI INTURI RAMA RAO, AM ITA No. 356/Coch/2025 Assessment Year: 2014-15 Kaniyath Poothakandy Surendran .......... Appellant KP Cheriyakkan and Son, HPC Dealers Main Road, Munnamangalam, Kozhikode [PAN: AOXPS5818K] vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-2, Kozhikode .......... Respondent Appellant by: ------- None ------- Respondent by: Smt. Leena Lal, Sr. D.R. Date of Hearing: 26.05.2025 Date of Pronouncement: 23.06.2025 O R D E R This appeal filed by the assessee is directed against the order of the National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi [CIT(A)] dated 30.11.2023 for Assessment Year (AY) 2014-15. 2. At the outset I find that there is a delay of 382 days in filing the appeal. The appellant filed a petition seeking condonation of delay by stating that the delay has occurred, as the appellant was exploring the alternative remedy of settling the dispute under the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme 2024. The appellant submitted a declaration in Form 1 under the scheme, which was summarily rejected by the Commissioner of Income 2 ITA No. 356/Coch/2025 Kaniyath Poothakandy Surendran Tax as no dispute was pending before the CIT(A) in the case of the appellant. Therefore, it is prayed that the delay may be condoned. 3. On the other hand, the learned Sr. DR vehemently opposed to condonation of delay, as no sufficient cause was shown for the delay. 4. I have carefully gone through the averments made in the petition seeking condonation of delay. From the averments made in the petition it is clear that the appellant had not shown any sufficient cause for the delay except giving some chronological events such as lack proper communication form the CIT(A), seeking alternative remedy under Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme, etc. Thus, the averments made in the petition seeking condonation are not genuine and does not really explain the reasons for the delay with evidence. Therefore, I am of the considered opinion that it is not a fit case to condone the delay of 382 days. In the case of Pundlilk Jalam Patil (dead) by LRs vs. Executive Engineer Jalgaon Medium Project [2008] 17 SCC 448, the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India held that basically the laws of limitation are founded on public policy and the courts have expressed at least three different reasons supporting the existence of statutes of limitation, namely (i) that long dormant claims have more of cruelty than justice in them, (ii) that a defendant might had lost the evidence to dispute the said claim, and (iii) that persons with good causes of action should pursue them with reasonable diligence. It was observed that the statutes of limitation are often called as statues of peace insofar as the unlimited and perpetual threat of limitation creates insecurity and uncertainty which are essential 3 ITA No. 356/Coch/2025 Kaniyath Poothakandy Surendran for public order. In the light of the above legal position, the appeal is dismissed on the ground of latches and delay. In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee stand dismissed.Order pronounced in the open court on 23rd June, 2025. Sd/- (INTURI RAMA RAO) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Cochin, Dated: 23rd June, 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 "