MUNDACKAL ABDUL RAHMAN ASHRAF V. INCOME TAX OFFICER

WP(C)/25875/2021

AI Insights

The case revolves around a writ petition filed by Mundackal Abdul Rahman Ashraf against the Income Tax Officer and the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) concerning the dismissal of his application for condonation of delay in filing a statutory appeal against an assessment order. The petitioner argued that the Appellate Authority had not requested any medical documents to support his claim for condonation of delay, leading to an arbitrary rejection of his application. The respondents contended that the petitioner had an effective alternative remedy by appealing to the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal and that the delay was not genuine as it was unsupported by sufficient documents proving the medical condition of the petitioner.

• Counselvise Citation: [2022] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 684574 (HC-KERALA)
• Appeal Type: Others
• Pronouncement Date: 26-07-2022
• Assessment Year: misc
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act
• Result in Favour of: Others
• Court: HIGH COURT
• Department Lawyers: CHRISTOPHER ABRAHAM
• Assessee Lawyers: DIVYA RAVINDRAN; LINCY GLANCY
• Keywords: Condonation of delay; Income tax appellate tribunal; Medical Condition; Statutory Appeal
• Section: 250

Judgement Text

"IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE GOPINATH P. TUESDAY, THE 26TH DAY OF JULY 2022 / 4TH SRAVANA, 1944 WP(C) NO. 25875 OF 2021 PETITIONER: MUNDACKAL ABDUL RAHMAN ASHRAF MUNDACKAL HOUSE, PALLIKKAVALA, MUDICKAL.P.O, PERUMBAVOOR-683 547, KERALA. BY ADVS. DIVYA RAVINDRAN LINCY GLANCY RESPONDENTS: 1 INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 1 & TPS, ALUVA RANGE, R.S.ROAD, ALUVA-683101, KERALA. 2 THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX(APPEALS), NATIONAL FACELESS APPEAL CENTER (NFAC), NEW DELHI-110 001. OTHER PRESENT: SRI. CHRISTOPHER ABRAHAM (SC) THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 26.07.2022, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: WP(C) NO. 25875 OF 2021 2 JUDGMENT The petitioner has approached this Court being aggrieved by Ext.P5 order by which the petitioner application for condonation of delay in filing a statutory appeal before the 2th respondent against Ext. P1 order of assessment has been dismissed on the ground that the petitioner has not furnished documents to prove his medical condition and therefore the delay of 12 days in filing the appeal cannot be condoned. 2. The learned counsel for the petitioner states that the petitioner received Ext.P3 notice from the Appellate Authority requiring the petitioner to upload written submissions regarding the grounds taken in the appeal. It is submitted that Ext.P3 is a notice under Section 250 of the Income Tax Act and if any documents were to be filed before the Appellate Authority, the same would be shown as a list under the head ‘Annexures’ to Ext.P3 notice. It is submitted that the Appellate Authority did not ask the petitioner to upload any medical documents supporting the claim for WP(C) NO. 25875 OF 2021 3 condonation of delay for 12 days and arbitrarily rejected the application for condonation of delay. 3. The learned Standing Counsel appearing for the respondent department states that the petitioner has an effective alternative remedy of appeal against Ext.P5 before the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal and there is no reason for him to approach this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. It is submitted that the Appellate Authority had decided not to condone the delay of 12 days in filing the statutory appeal since the claim of the petitioner was not found genuine and was unsupported by sufficient documents proving the medical condition of the petitioner. It is submitted that there is nothing illegal in Ext.P5 order. 4. Having heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Standing Counsel for the respondent, I am of the view that considering the fact that the delay in filing the statutory appeal was only 12 days, the Appellate Authority should have exercised his discretion to condone the said delay and to hear the appeal on merits. That apart the notice issued by the Appellate Authority under Section 250 of the WP(C) NO. 25875 OF 2021 4 Income Tax Act shows that he had not requested for uploading any documents in support of the reason stated in the application for condonation of delay. In the result Ext.P5 order is set aside. The delay of 12 days in filing Ext.P2 will stand condoned and the Appellate Authority (2nd respondent) shall hear and dispose of Ext.P2 appeal after affording an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner in accordance with law. Writ petition is disposed of as above. Sd/- GOPINATH P. JUDGE ats WP(C) NO. 25875 OF 2021 5 APPENDIX OF WP(C) 25875/2021 PETITIONER EXHIBITS Exhibit P1 TRUE COPY OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER DATED 7.12.2019 PASSED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT. Exhibit P2 TRUE COPY OF MEMORANDUM OF APPEAL FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE CIT(A)-II, KOCHI. Exhibit P3 TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE DATED 26.07.2021 SENT BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT. Exhibit P4 TRUE COPY OF THE REPLY UPLOADED BY THE PETITIONER ON 28.07.2021. Exhibit P5 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 4.08.2021, ISSUED UNDER SECTION 250 OF THE ACT BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT. Exhibit P6 TRUE COPY OF THE MEDICAL CERTIFICATE DATED 2.11.2021, OBTAINED FROMTHE DOCTOR. RESPONDENTS’ EXHIBITS: NIL "