Wp(C)/19140/2024 Of Thirunalloor Service Co-Operative Bank Ltd v. Income Tax Officer (Nfac)

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE MURALI PURUSHOTHAMAN MONDAY, THE 3 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: 1INCOME TAX OFFICER (NFAC) NATIONAL FACELESS ASSESSMENT CENTRE, NORTH BLOCK, NEW DELHI, PIN – 110 001.PIN – 110 001. 2INCOME TAX COMMISSIONER (APPEALS),NATIONAL FACELESS ASSESSMENT CENTRE, NORTH BLOCK, NEW DELHI, PIN – 110 001.NATIONAL FACELESS ASSESSMENT CENTRE, NORTH BLOCK, NEW DELHI, PIN – 110 001. SRI. CHRISTOPHER ABRAHAMSRI. P.R.AJITHKUMAR - SC THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 03.06.2024, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAYDELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: JUDGMENT The petitioner Society is an assessee under theIncome Tax Act, 1961 (for short, ‘the Act’). AgainstExt.P1 order of assessment passed by the 1[st]respondent under Section 143(3) of the Act, thepetitioner preferred Ext.P3 appeal before the 2[nd]respondent along with Ext.P4 application forcondonation of delay. The 2[nd] respondent, by Ext.P5order, dismissed Ext.P4 application for condonation ofdelay on the ground that the petitioner has not shownsufficient cause for condoning the delay. Paragraph 5.7 of Ext.P5 order reads as follows:- “5.7 In view of the foregoing discussion, factualmatrix and the judicial precedents, I find that nocase has been made out by the assessee forexistence of sufficient cause in the application forcondonation of substantial period of delay of 18days in filing the appeal. I also find that it is alsoa settled position of law that the delay isunexcusable unless sufficient cause is shown. Ifurther find that proper explanation and reasonsfor delay have not been given. Therefore, I am ofthe view that in the absence of existence of reasonable cause and also in the absence ofproper explanation and reasons, without beingsupported by proper evidence, the appeal filed bythe assessee late by 18 days, the delay is notcondonable. Hence, the appeal of the assessee Inot admitted and the same is dismissed inlimine.” 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 theAppellant was making enquires to get details offull-fledged interest statement from thegovernment auditor and clarifications regardingthe interest earned from other co-operativebanks mentioned in the said order. On receiptof the same, the Appellant contacted thecounsel briefed him about the facts andinstructed him to file the appeal. This hasresulted in a delay 14 days in filing the appeal. It is respectfully submitted that the delaywas occasioned due to reasons beyond thecontrol of the Appellant. The conduct of theAppellant is neither wilful nor contumacious.The Appellant has a good case to succeed inthe appeal. In these circumstances it isrespectfully prayed that the assessing authoritymay be pleased to condone the delay of 14days 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 2[nd] respondent has taken technical view in dismissing the application to condone the delay It is respectfully submitted that the delaywas occasioned due to reasons beyond thecontrol of the Appellant. The conduct of theAppellant is neither wilful nor contumacious.The Appellant has a good case to succeed inthe appeal. In these circumstances it isrespectfully prayed that the assessing authoritymay be pleased to condone the delay of 14days 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 2[nd] respondent has taken technical view in dismissing the application to condone the delay and in consequently dismissing the appeal. The 2[nd]respondent went wrong in dismissing the appeal atthe threshold on technical grounds. Accordingly, I setaside Ext.P5 order and direct the 2[nd] respondent toconsider Ext.P3 appeal on merits, as expeditiously aspossible, at any rate, within a period of three monthsfrom the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment.Till orders are passed on Ext.P3 appeal, there shallnot be any recovery steps against the petitionerpursuant to Ext.P1. The writ petition is disposed of with the abovedirection. Sd/- MURALI PURUSHOTHAMAN JUDGE SPR APPENDIX PETITIONER’S EXHIBITS:- EXHIBIT P1A TRUE COPY OF ASSESSMENT ORDER U/S143(3) ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENTDATED 26.09.2022. EXHIBIT P2A TRUE COPY OF DEMAND NOTICE ISSUED BY1ST RESPONDENT DATED 26.09.2022.EXHIBIT P3A TRUE COPY OF APPEAL FILED BEFORE THE2ND RESPONDENT DATED 14.11.2022.EXHIBIT P4A TRUE COPY OF THE PETITION FORCONDONATION FOR DELAY FILED BEFORE THE2ND RESPONDENT DATED 20.02.2024.EXHIBIT P5A TRUE COPY OF THE APPELLATE ORDER U/S250 ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT DATED25.04.2024. RESPONDENTS EXHIBITS: NIL.