Cmp/7256/2022 Of K. Loganathan v. Income Tax Officer
High Court
13 Jun 2022 In favour of: Unclear
Forum / Bench
High Court · hc_cis_mas
Parties
Cmp/7256/2022 Of K. Loganathan v. Income Tax Officer
Date of order
13 Jun 2022
Assessment year(s)
—
Outcome
Other
Case summary
In Cmp/7256/2022 Of K. Loganathan v. Income Tax Officer, the High Court (2022) decided the matter.
Summary auto-generated from the order below — read the full judgment for the complete reasoning.
Sections referenced in this judgment
The order — as passed by the High Court
C.M.P.No.7256 of 2022
in
T.CA.SR.No.6143 of 2022
R. MAHADEVAN, J.
and
MOHAMMED SHAFFIQ, J.
(Order of the court was made by R.MAHADEVAN, J.)
This petition has been filed by the petitioner / appellant / assessee seeking to condone the delay of 1690 days in filing the above Tax Case Appeal.
2. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner did not aware about the order dated 25.01.2017 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal under section 254 of the Income Tax Act, as his authorised representative, one Kannan Rangan, Chartered Accountant, who conducted the case, failed to inform the status of the case; only after receiving a notice under section 221(1) relating to penalty proceedings on 06.12.2021, the petitioner came to know about the order dated 25.01.2017; thereafter, steps were taken to obtain the copy of the order and draft the appeal papers; and the appeal was filed on 13.01.2022. In that process, the delay had occasioned, which is neither wilful nor wanton. Therefore, the learned counsel sought to condone the delay in filing the appeal, failing which, irreparable loss and hardship would caused to the petitioner.
3. Mr.Karthik Ranganathan, learned counsel appearing for the respondent
has no serious objection in condoning the delay.
4. Considering the reasons stated in the affidavit filed in support of this
petition and having regard to the no objection expressed on the side of the respondent and also taking note of the legal position that the question of limitation
is not based on technical consideration, but is on the principles of public policy and equity; and the substantial justice is paramount consideration and pivotal, this court is inclined to condone the delay in filing the appeal.
5. Accordingly, the delay is condoned and this petition is ordered as prayed
for.
av
[R.M.D., J.] [M.S.Q., J.]
13.06.2022
Note:
Registry is directed to number the appeal, if it is otherwise in order.
R. MAHADEVAN, J. and MOHAMMED SHAFFIQ, J.
av
C.M.P.No.7256 of 2022in T.CA.SR.No.6143 of 2022
13.06.2022
This page reproduces a public-domain court order (Section 52(1)(q)(iv), Copyright Act 1957). Explanations are EaseValue's original analysis. Always read the original order.
Disclaimer: General information only — not legal, tax or professional advice, and no advocate/CA–client relationship is created. AI-generated summaries may contain errors and must be verified against the original court order. EaseValue accepts no liability for reliance on this content. Not a solicitation.
Full disclaimer & Terms.