THE ITO, TIRUR vs. M/S.PERINTHALMANNA SERVICE CO-OP BANK LTD, MALAPPURAM
In favour of the assessee: the Revenue's appeal was dismissed. From the AI summary of this appeal.
What did the Tribunal hold?
The Tribunal dismissed the Revenue's appeals due to the inordinate delay and lack of proper reasons for condonation. Consequently, the cross-objections filed by the assessee were also dismissed as infructuous.
What were the facts?
The Revenue filed appeals before the ITAT with a significant delay of 1112 days against the orders of the CIT(A). The Revenue cited a subsequent High Court decision as the reason for filing the appeals late, but did not provide specific reasons for the delay.
What were the issues?
The primary issue was whether the delay in filing the Revenue's appeals should be condoned. The Tribunal also considered the finality of the CIT(A)'s order due to the delay.
Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Cases cited in this judgment(2)Show listHide list
Detected automatically from the text. Citations are also linked where they appear in the judgment. The count shows how many other judgments on BharatTax rely on the same authority.
- Co-operative Bank Ltd. v. CIT631 citing384 ITR 490 · 2016 · HC
- Perithalmanna Service Co-operative Bank v. ITO71 citing363 ITR 268 · 2014 · HC
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, COCHIN BENCH, COCHIN
Before: Shri Chandra Poojari, AM & Shri George Mathan, JM
Heard together (8 matters)
Read from the judgment's own cause title. This page is filed under one of them.
In these appeals filed by the Revenue, there is a delay of 1112 days. The order of the CIT(A) is of February 2017. The learned ITO, Ward-4, Tirur has filed an Affidavit mentioning that there has been change in the law insofar as a subsequent decision of the Full Bench of the Hon’ble Jurisdictional High Court of Kerala in the case of The Mavilayi Service Co-opeative Bank Ltd. v. CIT [ITA No.97/2016 order dated 19th March, 2019] applies and consequently the order of the CIT(A) is liable to be reversed. In the Affidavit, no reason for the delay is mentioned other than stating that the decision of the Hon’ble Jurisdictional High Court in the case of Chirakkal Service Co-operative Bank Ltd. v. CIT [(2016) 384 ITR 490 (Ker.)] was not good law and the decision in the case of Perinthalmanna Service Co-operative Bank Ltd. reported in 363 ITR 268 was the correct proposition in law. On behalf of the assessee, there is vehement objection in respect of the condonation of the delay.
We have considered the rival submissions. Admittedly, the order of the CIT(A) is of February 2017. The time limit for filing appeal against the order of the CIT(A) before the Tribunal is 60 days. The order giving effect to the order of the CIT(A) as provided in the provisions of section 153(5) has also expired. As per the Affidavit filed by the Revenue, the decision of the Full Bench of the Hon’ble Jurisdictional High Court in -262/Coch/2020 3 CO Nos.04-07/Coch/2020. M/s.Perinthalmanna SCB Limited. the case of The Mavilayi Service Co-opeative Bank Ltd. v. CIT¸ referred to supra, was delivered on 19.03.2019. These appeals have been filed only on 18.06.2020 after an inordinate delay. Consequently, as no reasons have been given for the delay in filing of these appeals and on account of the fact that the time limit for giving effect to the order of the learned CIT(A) has expired and the issue has now reached finality for the impugned assessment years in respect of the assessee, it would not be appropriate to disturb such finality. Consequently, the delay in filing of these appeals of 1112 days is not condoned and the appeals of the Revenue stand dismissed. As the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed on the ground of delayed filing of the appeals before the Tribunal, we are not going into the merits of the issues.
Since we have dismissed the appeals filed by the Revenue as time barred, the cross objections filed by the assessee being in support of the orders of the learned CIT(A), the same are infructuous, and the same stand dismissed.
In the result, the appeals filed by the Revenue and cross objections filed by the assessee are dismissed.
Order pronounced on this 07th day of October, 2020.
More judgments on Section 153(5)
- M/S. Biesse Manufacturing Company Private… vs Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax…ITTPA 398/BANG/2023[2009-10]Status: Disposed9 Sept 2026AY 2009-10
- Etisalat Software Solutions P. Ltd… vs ACIT, Circle-2(2)(1), BengaluruITA 92/BANG/2026[2017-18]Status: Disposed24 Aug 2026AY 2017-18
- Town Vividoddesha Sahakari Bhandara… vs Income Tax Officer, Ward 1 & Tps, TumkuruITA 2457/BANG/2026[2017-18]Status: Disposed20 Aug 2026AY 2017-18
- K R Pradeep, Bangalore vs Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Central…ITA 428/BANG/2026[2018-19]Status: Disposed19 Aug 2026AY 2018-19
- Leighton India Contractors Pvt Ltd., Mumbai vs DCIT, Cir-14(1)(1), MumbaiITA 896/MUM/2026[2015-16]Status: Disposed27 Jul 2026AY 2015-16
Recent GST High Court judgments
Search GST case law →- Manoj Kumar Das vs. The State Of BiharPatna · 15 Oct 2026
- M/S Superwealth Financial Enterprises Private Limited, Khordha vs. Joint Commissioner Good And Service Tax Central Excise, BhubaneswarOrissa · 15 Oct 2026
- Simanchal Sahoo vs. Commissioner Of CT And GST, Odisha, CuttackOrissa · 15 Oct 2026
- M/S. Prafulla Chandra Khatua, Mayurbhanj vs. The State Tax Officer Of CT And GST, MayurbhanjOrissa · 15 Oct 2026
- M/S.Sidhivinayak Roadways, Sundergarh vs. Commissioner Of GST And Central Excise, Rourkela Commissionerate, RourkelaOrissa · 15 Oct 2026