THIRUNALLOOR SERVICE CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD V. INCOME TAX OFFICER (NFAC)

WP(C)/19140/2024

AI Insights

The case involves Thirunalloor Service Co-operative Bank Ltd., which contested an assessment order under the Income Tax Act, 1961. The bank filed an appeal against the assessment order but was initially dismissed due to an 18-day delay in filing the appeal. The Income Tax Commissioner (Appeals) dismissed the delay application on technical grounds, stating insufficient cause was shown for the delay. The bank argued that the delay was due to the time taken to gather necessary documents and consult with legal counsel. The High Court found the bank's reasons sufficient and directed the Commissioner to reconsider the appeal on its merits.

• Counselvise Citation: [2024] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 747306 (HC-KERALA)
• Appeal Type: Others
• Pronouncement Date: 03-06-2024
• Assessment Year: misc
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act, 1961
• Result in Favour of: Others
• Court: HIGH COURT
• Department Lawyers: CHRISTOPHER ABRAHAM; P R AJITHKUMAR
• Assessee Lawyers: C A JOJO
• Keywords: Appeal; Assessment Order; Condonation of delay; Income Tax
• Section: 143(3)

Judgement Text

"IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE MURALI PURUSHOTHAMAN MONDAY, THE 3RD DAY OF JUNE 2024/13TH JYAISHTA, 1946 WP(C) NO. 19140 OF 2024 PETITIONER: THIRUNALLOOR SERVICE CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD. LTD.NO.1250 PALLIPPURAM VILLAGE, THIRUNALLOOR P. O, CHERTHALA, ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, PIN – 688 557. BY ADV C.A.JOJO RESPONDENTS: 1 INCOME TAX OFFICER (NFAC) NATIONAL FACELESS ASSESSMENT CENTRE, NORTH BLOCK, NEW DELHI, PIN – 110 001. 2 INCOME TAX COMMISSIONER (APPEALS), NATIONAL FACELESS ASSESSMENT CENTRE, NORTH BLOCK, NEW DELHI, PIN – 110 001. SRI. CHRISTOPHER ABRAHAM SRI. P.R.AJITHKUMAR - SC THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 03.06.2024, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: WP(C).No.19140 OF 2024 2 JUDGMENT The petitioner Society is an assessee under the Income T ax Act, 1961 (for short, ‘the Act’). Against Ext.P1 order of assessment passed by the 1st respondent under Section 143(3) of the Act, the petitioner preferred Ext.P3 appeal before the 2nd respondent along with Ext.P4 application for condonation of delay. The 2nd respondent, by Ext.P5 order, dismissed Ext.P4 application for condonation of delay on the ground that the petitioner has not shown sufficient cause for condoning the delay. Paragraph 5.7 of Ext.P5 order reads as follows:- “5.7 In view of the foregoing discussion, factual matrix and the judicial precedents, I find that no case has been made out by the assessee for existence of sufficient cause in the application for condonation of substantial period of delay of 18 days in filing the appeal. I also find that it is also a settled position of law that the delay is unexcusable unless sufficient cause is shown. I further find that proper explanation and reasons for delay have not been given. Therefore, I am of the view that in the absence of existence of WP(C).No.19140 OF 2024 3 reasonable cause and also in the absence of proper explanation and reasons, without being supported by proper evidence, the appeal filed by the assessee late by 18 days, the delay is not condonable. Hence, the appeal of the assessee I not admitted and the same is dismissed in limine.” 2. Ext.P4 is the petition to condone the delay in filing Ext.P3 appeal, wherein it is stated as follows:- “On receipt of the impugned order the Appellant was making enquires to get details of full-fledged interest statement from the government auditor and clarifications regarding the interest earned from other co-operative banks mentioned in the said order. On receipt of the same, the Appellant contacted the counsel briefed him about the facts and instructed him to file the appeal. This has resulted in a delay 14 days in filing the appeal. It is respectfully submitted that the delay was occasioned due to reasons beyond the control of the Appellant. The conduct of the Appellant is neither wilful nor contumacious. The Appellant has a good case to succeed in the appeal. In these circumstances it is respectfully prayed that the assessing authority may be pleased to condone the delay of 14 days in filing the appeal.” On going through the reason stated in Ext.P4, I find that the petitioner has stated sufficient reason in the application for condonation of delay. 3. The 2nd respondent has taken technical view WP(C).No.19140 OF 2024 4 in dismissing the application to condone the delay and in consequently dismissing the appeal. The 2nd respondent went wrong in dismissing the appeal at the threshold on technical grounds. Accordingly, I set aside Ext.P5 order and direct the 2nd respondent to consider Ext.P3 appeal on merits, as expeditiously as possible, at any rate, within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. Till orders are passed on Ext.P3 appeal, there shall not be any recovery steps against the petitioner pursuant to Ext.P1. The writ petition is disposed of with the above direction. Sd/- MURALI PURUSHOTHAMAN JUDGE SPR WP(C).No.19140 OF 2024 5 APPENDIX PETITIONER’ S EXHIBITS :- EXHIBIT P1 A TRUE COPY OF ASSESSMENT ORDER U/S 143(3) ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT DATED 26.09.2022. EXHIBIT P2 A TRUE COPY OF DEMAND NOTICE ISSUED BY 1ST RESPONDENT DATED 26.09.2022. EXHIBIT P3 A TRUE COPY OF APPEAL FILED BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT DATED 14.11.2022. EXHIBIT P4 A TRUE COPY OF THE PETITION FOR CONDONATION FOR DELAY FILED BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT DATED 20.02.2024. EXHIBIT P5 A TRUE COPY OF THE APPELLATE ORDER U/S 250 ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT DATED 25.04.2024. RESPONDENTS EXHIBITS: NIL. "