PATTASHERYVALAPPIL MOHAMMED RIYAS,KODINHI,TIRUTHI MALAPURAM V. INCOME TAX OFFICER, TIRUR

ITA 924/COCH/2024

AI Insights

The case involves an appeal by Sri. Pattasheryvalappil Mohammed Riyas against an order passed by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), which was initially delayed by 710 days. The assessee argued that his illness and the COVID-19 pandemic restrictions prevented him from filing the appeal on time. However, the tribunal found that the Supreme Court's extension of limitation periods due to the pandemic did not apply to the assessee's case, as the deadline for filing the appeal had already passed. The tribunal also noted the lack of evidence supporting the assessee's claim of illness during the period he alleged was incapacitated.

• Counselvise Citation: [2025] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 471668 (ITAT-COCHIN)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 27-03-2025
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: DB
• Assessment Year: 2017-2018
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: LEENA LAL
• Assessee Lawyers: SHAJI PAULOSE
• Keywords: Condonation of delay; Corroborative evidences; Period of limitation; Time period of passing order
• Section: 250; 64

Judgement Text

"IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL COCHIN BENCH, COCHIN Before Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Accountant Member & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail, Judicial Member ITA No.924/Coch/2024 :Asst.Year 2017-2018 Sri.Pattasheryvalappil Mohammed Riyas, P.O.Kodinhi Tiruthi, Malappuram – 676 309. PAN : AYHPM5822D. v. The Income Tax Officer Tirur. (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant by : Sri. Shaji Paulose, CA Respondent by : Smt.Leena Lal, Sr.AR Date of Hearing :25.03.2025 Date of Pronouncement : 27.03.2025 O R D E R Per Sandeep Singh Karhail, JM : 1. The assessee has filed the present appeal against the impugned order dated 20/06/2024, passed under section 250 of the Income Tax Act (“the Act”) by the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi, [“learned CIT(A)”], for the assessment year 2017-18. 2. The present appeal is delayed by 64 days. Along with the appeal, the assessee has filed an application seeking condonation of delay, which is duly supported by an affidavit of the assessee. In the affidavit, the assessee submitted that the appellate order was served on a different email ID, which is not used by him regularly, and when he came to know about the order on a later date, the necessary steps ITA No.924/Coch/2025. Sri.Pattasheryvalappil Mohammed Riyas. 2 were taken for filing the present appeal. Having considered the submissions of the assessee, we are of the considered view that there was sufficient cause for not filing the appeal by the assessee within the limitation period. Accordingly, we condone the delay in filing the present appeal by the assessee. 3. Upon perusal of the impugned order passed by the learned CIT(A), we find that the assessee did not comply with various notices issued by the learned CIT(A) during the appellate proceedings and repeatedly sought adjournment. We further find that the assessee’s appeal before the learned CIT(A) was also filed after a delay of 710 days. We find that before the learned CIT(A) the assessee submitted that the assessment order was received on 28/12/2019,and the time limit of filing the appeal before the learned CIT(A) was till 27/01/2020. However, the assessee fell ill from 20/01/2020 till 22/03/2022. It is the plea of the assessee that since the restrictions due to Covid pandemic started in the last week of March 2020, the assessee could not file the appeal within the prescribed limitation period. We find that before the learned CIT(A), the assessee also placed reliance upon the order passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court extending the period of limitation. At the outset, we are of the considered view that the Hon’ble Supreme Court’s order dated 10/01/2022, in M.A. no.21 of 2022, in M.A. no.665 of 2021, in Suo–Motu Writ Petition (Civil) no.3 of 2020extending the period of limitation due to Covid pandemic is only applicable where the period of limitation falls between 15/03/2020 and ITA No.924/Coch/2025. Sri.Pattasheryvalappil Mohammed Riyas. 3 28/02/2022. However, in the present case, admittedly,the period of limitation for filing the appeal before the learned CIT(A) was available till 27/01/2020. Therefore, we do not find any merits in the reliance placed by the assessee on the aforesaid order of the Hon’ble Supreme Court. Apart from the aforesaid submissions, it is evident from the perusal of the impugned order that no material/evidence was filed by the assessee to substantiate its plea that from 20/01/2020 till 22/03/2020, he was not well. Therefore, we are of the considered view that the plea of the assessee seeking condonation of delay of 710 days in filing the appeal before the learned CIT(A) is completely bereft of any merits due to lack of supporting evidence. Accordingly, we do not find any infirmity in the impugned order passed by the learned CIT(A)in dismissing the assessee’s appeal due to an inordinate delay of 710 days in filing the same. Hence, the impugned order passed by the learned CIT(A) is upheld, and the grounds raised by the assessee are dismissed. 4. In the result, the appeal by the assessee is dismissed. Order pronounced on this 27th day of March, 2025. Sd/- (Inturi Rama Rao) Sd/- (Sandeep Singh Karhail) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER Cochin; Dated : 27th March, 2025. Devadas G* ITA No.924/Coch/2025. Sri.Pattasheryvalappil Mohammed Riyas. 4 Copy to : 1. The Appellant. 2. The Respondent. 3. The CIT, Cochin. 4. The DR, ITAT, Cochin. 5. Guard File. Asst.Registrar/ITAT, Cochin "