By Advs.harisankar v. Menonmeera V.menonr.sreejithk.krishnaachyuth Menonparvathy Menonpadmanathan K.v

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAMPRESENT THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE GOPINATH P. MONDAY, THE 11 DAY OF MARCH 2024 / 21ST PHALGUNA, 1945WP(C) NO. 8900 OF 2024 PETITIONER: ALUVA CO-OPERATIVE A GRICULTURAL AND RURAL DEVELIOPMENTBANK LTD. NO.E87 (FORMERLY KNOWN AS THE ERNAKULAM CO-OPERATIVE AGRICULTURAL & RURAL DEVELOPMENT BANK LTD,. NO.E-87)VI/7(25), ECARD BANK LTD, BYE-PASS JUNCTION, ALUVA, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, LIGY P. SCARIA., PIN – 683101. BY ADVS.HARISANKAR V. MENONMEERA V.MENONR.SREEJITHK.KRISHNAACHYUTH MENONPARVATHY MENONPADMANATHAN K.V. RESPONDENTS: 1THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, INCOME TAX DEPARTMENT, WARD 1, ALUVA, PIN – 683101. 2THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS),POORNIMA BUILDING,PANAMPILLY NAGAR, KOCHI, PIN – 682036. 3THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS),NATIONAL FACELESS APPEAL CENTRE, DELHI, PIN – 110001. BY ADVS.CHRISTOPHER ABRAHAM, INCOME TAX DEPARTMENTP.R.AJITH KUMAR THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON11.03.2024, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: JUDGMENT The petitioner suffered Ext.P1 order of assessment dated29.3.2016 under the provisions of the Income Tax Act, 1961 for theassessment year 2008-09. The petitioner filed Ext.P2 appeal beforethe Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), the 2[nd] respondent on18.4.2016. Realising that the appeal has to be filed online, thepetitioner filed Ext.P5 appeal along with an application forcondonation of delay specifically mentioning that due to a genuinemistake, Ext.P2 appeal had been filed in manual form before the 2[nd]respondent and seeking to condone the delay of 141 days in filingthe appeal. The 3[rd] respondent has however, dismissed theapplication for condonation of delay. 2.The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner wouldsubmit on the strength of the judgments of the Hon’ble SupremeCourt in Collector Land Acquision v. MST Katiji and in N.Balakrishnan v. M. Krishnamurthy [1998 (7)SCC 123] to contend that when there is a reasonable explanation insupport of the application for condonation of delay, a highly strictapproach could not be adopted and the power to condone the delay WP(C) NO. 8900 OF 2024 3 should have been exercised in favour of the petitioner in the factsand circumstances of the case. 3.The learned Standing Counsel appearing for the IncomeTax Department would submit that the petitioner is well aware thatthe appeal had to be filed online and not before the Commissionerof Income Tax (Appeals) in manual form. It is submitted that sincethe petitioner has not filed an appeal before the competentauthority, it should be taken that there was no appeal filed andtherefore, the petitioner had correctly sought for condonation ofdelay while filing the appeal before the 3[rd] respondent on3.11.2016. 4.Having heard the learned counsel appearing for thepetitioner and the learned Standing Counsel appearing for theIncome Tax Department, I am of the view that the petitioner isentitled to succeed. It is not in dispute that on the date of filing ofExt.P2 appeal, the Appellate Authority was actually the 2[nd]respondent and not the 3[rd] respondent. The only mistake that wascommitted by the petitioner was that he had filed an appeal inmanual form instead of filing it in online form. Immediately oncoming to know the mistake, the petitioner filed an online appeal WP(C) NO. 8900 OF 2024 4 on 3.11.2016 along with an application for condonation of delay of141 days which is the delay considering the date of assessmentorder and the date of filing of the appeal in the online form. Therequirement of filing an appeal in online form was introduced onlyon 1.3.2016. The appeal filed manually in this case was filed on18.4.2016, therefore I am clear in my mind that the mistake infiling the appeal in the manual mode constituted sufficient cause forcondonation of delay in filing the appeal. WP(C) NO. 8900 OF 2024 4 on 3.11.2016 along with an application for condonation of delay of141 days which is the delay considering the date of assessmentorder and the date of filing of the appeal in the online form. Therequirement of filing an appeal in online form was introduced onlyon 1.3.2016. The appeal filed manually in this case was filed on18.4.2016, therefore I am clear in my mind that the mistake infiling the appeal in the manual mode constituted sufficient cause forcondonation of delay in filing the appeal. 5.Therefore, this writ petition is allowed. Ext.P6 order isquashed and Ext.P5 appeal will stand restored to the file of the 3[rd]respondent (to whom it has now been transferred). The 3[rd]respondent shall consider Ext.P5 appeal as one filed within timetaking into consideration the date of filing of the appeal in manualform as the date of filing of the appeal and shall dispose of theappeal in accordance with law after affording an opportunity ofhearing to the petitioner. Sd/-GOPINATH P. JUDGE WP(C) NO. 8900 OF 2024 5 APPENDIX OF WP(C) 8900/2024 PETITIONER’S EXHIBITS Exhibit P1COPY OF ASSESSMENT ORDER ISSUED BY THE 1STRESPONDENT FOR THE YEAR 29-03-2016.RESPONDENT FOR THE YEAR 29-03-2016. Exhibit P2COPY OF APPEAL FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORETHE 2ND RESPONDENT DTD. 18-04-2016.THE 2ND RESPONDENT DTD. 18-04-2016. Exhibit P3COPY OF LOCAL DELIVERY BOOK OF THE PETITIONEREVIDENCING THE CONFIRMATION OF RECEIPT FORFILING APPEAL DTD. 22-04-2016.EVIDENCING THE CONFIRMATION OF RECEIPT FORFILING APPEAL DTD. 22-04-2016. Exhibit P4COPYOF STAY PETITION FILED BY THE PETITIONERBEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT DTD. 18-04-2016.BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT DTD. 18-04-2016. Exhibit P5COPY OF ONLINE APPEAL FILED BY THE PETITIONERBEFORE THE 3RD RESPONDENT DTD. 02-11-2016.BEFORE THE 3RD RESPONDENT DTD. 02-11-2016. Exhibit P6COPY OF ORDER ISSUED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENTDTD. 28-02-2024.DTD. 28-02-2024.