KOOTHERY NARAYANAN VIJAYAN,PALAKKAD V. ITO,NON CORPORATE WARD 2(4), KOCHI

SA 27/COCH/2025

AI Insights

The case involves appeals by Koothery Narayanan Vijayan against the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemptions), Kochi, which imposed penalties under section 271B of the Income Tax Act for the assessment years 2013-14, 2014-15, and 2016-17. The appeals were dismissed due to a significant delay in filing, attributed to the assessee's health issues and negligence by his tax consultant. The tribunal found the explanations for the delay unconvincing, noting the absence of medical evidence supporting the claimed health issues during the relevant period and the lack of an affidavit from the tax consultant. The tribunal emphasized the importance of adhering to legal timelines and dismissed the appeals based on the principle that the power to condone delay should not frustrate the substantial law of limitation.

• Counselvise Citation: [2025] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 396268 (ITAT-COCHIN)
• Appeal Type: Stay Application
• Pronouncement Date: 30-05-2025
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: DB
• Assessment Year: 2014-2015
• Other Referred Cases: Rahul Malvi W.P Number 17440 of 2024, H. Guruswamy Vs A.Krishna, Mool Chandra v. Union of India, Commissioner, Nagar Parishad, Bhilwara v. Labour Court, Bhilwara
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: LEENA LAL
• Assessee Lawyers: VISHNU VIJAYAN
• Keywords: Condonation of delay; Reasonable cause; Period of limitation; Rectification of order; Application of stay

Judgement Text

"IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL COCHIN BENCH BEFORE SHRI INTURI RAMA RAO, AM AND SHRI PRAKASH CHAND YADAV., JM ITA Nos. 171 to 173/Coch/2025 & SA Nos. 26 to 28/Coch/2025 Assessment Years: 2013-14, 2014-15 & 2016-17 Koothery Narayanan Vijayan .......... Appellant 12/A Sastha Nagar, Pudussery, West Kanjikode West S.O., Palakkad 678621 [PAN: ABNPV1151H] vs. The Income Tax Officer .......... Respondent Non-Corporte Ward (4) & TPS, Kochi Appellant by: Shri Vishnu Vijayan, Advocate Respondent by: Smt. Leena Lal, Sr. D.R. Date of Hearing: 30.05.2025 Date of Pronouncement: 30.05.2025 O R D E R Per Bench:- 1. These appeals and stay applications filed by the assessee are directed against the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemptions), Kochi, dated 19.02.2024 for Assessment Year (AY) 2013-14, 2014-15 and 2016-17, against the levy of penalty u/s 271B of the Income Tax Act( herein after referred to as Act for the sake of convenience). 2 ITA No. 171 to 173/Coch/2025 SA Nos. 26 to 28/Coch/2025 Koothery Narayanan Vijayan 2. Since they are arising from the same order in respect of the same assessee we are deciding these appeals by this common order for the sake of convenience. 3. At the outset it is observed that there is a delay of 236 days in these appeals, counsel for the assessee while explaning the cause of delay in these appeals has drawn the attention of bench towards the petition for condonation of delay and argued that the assessee is an old person having sever back ache in those days and secondly the Tax consultant failed to take note of the orders of the CIT(A) 4. Ld DR appearing on behalf of the revenue pointed out that there is no evidence in support of the medical conditions for the relvant period of the assessee and further relied on the judgment of Rahul malvi W.P Number 17440 of 2024 dated 18.12.2024 (Del), for the proposition that it is not permissible to blame the professional every time without there being any action against such professionals, in terms of their governing bodies. 5. After considering the rival submissions, we observe that it is pertinent to note that the documents produced by the assessee were not in strict sense the medical certificates rather medical prescription of the assessee, we would further like to mention 3 ITA No. 171 to 173/Coch/2025 SA Nos. 26 to 28/Coch/2025 Koothery Narayanan Vijayan certain dates which goes to the root of the matter, for judging whether the contention of assessee of keeping ill health is correct or not. A perusal of the Medical Prescription dated 17.12.2023 would show that the assessee was having some problems in his spine and the doctor advised him for 3 weeks bed rest. Three weeks probably end by 08.01.2024, afterwards the other medical prescription dated 02.02.2024 and 06.06.2024 would nowhere show that the assessee was advised complete bed rest. The order of the CIT(A) is dated 19.02.2024. Which means period of limitation for filing the appeals was ending on 18.04.2024, during this period the assessee was absolutely fine as evident from the fact that the assessee had visited the doctor on 06.06.2024. Second contention of the assessee is that the tax consultant Mr Madhu failed to take note of the order of the CIT(A). However there is no separate affidavit from Mr Madhu supporting the contention of the assessee, neither the assessee has made any complaint to any statutory body. It is settled position of law that power to condone delay should be exercised having regard to the facts of the case, the power cannot be exercised to frustrate the substantial law of limitation as held by the Apex Court recently in the case of H. Guruswamy Vs A.Krishna Civil appeal number 317 of 2025. The Hon’ble Apex Court in yet another case of Mool Chandra v. Union of India, 2024 SCC OnLine SC 1878, decided on 5-8-2024] has held that 4 ITA No. 171 to 173/Coch/2025 SA Nos. 26 to 28/Coch/2025 Koothery Narayanan Vijayan it is not he length of the delay rather the cause behind the delay, which is to be seen while condoning he delay. In the case of Commissioner, Nagar Parishad, Bhilwara v. Labour Court, Bhilwara, (2009) 3 SCC 525, it was opined that while deciding an application for condonation of delay the High Court ought not to have gone into the merits of the case. “If negligence can be attributed to the appellant, then necessarily the delay which has not been condoned by the Tribunal and affirmed by the High Court deserves to be accepted. However, if no fault can be laid at the doors of the appellant and cause shown is sufficient then we are of the considered view that both the Tribunal and the High Court were in error in not adopting a liberal approach or justice-oriented approach to condone the delay”. In the present case the cause responsible for the delay would not fall under the ambit of “reasonable cause”. Therefore, we are not convinced with the reasons given by the assessee for condonation of appeal, and hence, the present appeal is dismissed as barred by limitation. 6. Before parting we would like to observe that the assessee herein before is a contractor having receipt of Rs 44.65 Crore ( as per the rectification order of the AO dated 13.09.2022 for AY 2014-15), and has gone to the Hon’ble High Court against the order of the AO in writ petition number 41882 of 2022 and 5 ITA No. 171 to 173/Coch/2025 SA Nos. 26 to 28/Coch/2025 Koothery Narayanan Vijayan challenged the order of the AO. In view of these facts it cannot be assumed that the assessee is not conversant with the nitty- gritty of the tax laws. 7. In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee stands dismissed on the ground of limitation itself. 8. Since we have already decided the main appeals the stay applications filed by the assessee become infructuous. Order pronounced in the open court on 30th May, 2025. Sd/- Sd/- (INTURI RAMA RAO) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER (PRAKASH CHAND YADAV) JUDICIAL MEMBER Cochin, Dated: 30th May, 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 By Order Assistant Registrar ITAT, Cochin "