The Paravur Service Co-operative Bank Ltd. No.1801 vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER
What did the High Court hold?
The High Court allowed the writ appeal, setting aside the learned Single Judge's judgment. The Court found that the statutory provisions do empower the ITAT to condone the delay in question. The reasoning was based on the submission of the appellant's counsel that such a power exists. The High Court directed the ITAT to consider and pass orders on the delay condonation application within two months of receiving the judgment. Recovery steps for the amounts confirmed by the first appellate authority were to be kept in abeyance until the ITAT passed its order on the delay condonation application and communicated it to the appellant. The issue of whether the delay should ultimately be condoned was left to the ITAT to decide.
What were the facts?
The appellant, Paravur Service Co-operative Bank Ltd., filed a writ petition before the Kerala High Court challenging an order of the First Appellate Authority under the Income Tax Act. The bank had appealed this order before the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT), filing an appeal, a stay petition, and a delay condonation application. The writ petition's limited prayer was for a direction to the ITAT to consider and pass orders on the delay condonation application and to stay recovery proceedings until the ITAT decided on the delay. The learned Single Judge dismissed the writ petition, apparently on the assumption that the ITAT lacked the power to condone the delay.
What were the issues?
1. Whether the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal has the power to condone the delay in filing an appeal, as per the provisions of the statute? (Question of law) Assessee's contention: The learned counsel for the appellant argued that the statute empowers the Appellate Tribunal to condone the delay, and this is a discretionary power to be exercised based on statutory provisions and the assessee's explanation for the delay. Revenue's contention: The judgment records that the learned Standing Counsel for the Income Tax Department was heard, but it does not record any specific arguments made by the revenue on the issue of the Tribunal's power to condone delay.
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Cause title — parties, addresses and appearances
J U D G M E N T ============
Dr. A.K.Jayasankaran Nambiar, J. This appeal has been preferred by the appellant- Co-operative Bank aggrieved by the judgment dated 23.05.2024 of a learned Single Judge in W.P(C)No.17762 of 2024. 2. The brief facts necessary for disposal of this writ appeal are as follows: The appellant herein had approached the writ court against an order of the First Appellate Authority under the Income Tax Act, against which order they had preferred Ext.P3 appeal, Ext.P4 stay petition and Ext.P5 delay condonation application before the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal.
The limited prayer in the writ petition was for a direction to the Appellate Tribunal to consider and pass orders on Ext.P5 delay condonation application and to stay the recovery proceedings for recovery of amounts confirmed against the appellant by the first appellate order, till such time as the Tribunal had an occassion to consider and pass orders on the dealy condonation applicaton.
The learned Single Judge, proceeding on the assumption that the Appellate Tribunal did not have a power to condone the delay in question, thought it appropriate to dismiss the writ petition. It is against the said judgment of the learned Single Judge that the appellant is before us in this appeal.
We have heard Sri.Arjun Raghavan, the learned counsel for the appellant and Sri.P.G.Jayashankar, the learned Standing Counsel for the Income Tax Department.
It is the submission of Sri.Arjun Raghavan, the learned counsel for the appellant that, as per the provisions of the statute, the Appellate Tribunal has the power to condone the delay in question and it is a discretionary power that has to be exercised based on the provisions of the statute and by considering the explanation of the assessee for the delay. Taking note of the said submission and finding that the statutory provisions empower the Tribunal to condone the delay in question, we deem it appropriate to allow the writ appeal, by setting aside the impugned judgment of the learned Single Judge, and with the following directions: The Appellate Tribunal, before which Ext.P3 appeal, Ext.P4 stay petition and Ext.P5 delay condondation application preferred by the appellant are pending, shall consider and pass orders on Ext.P5 delay condonation application within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. The recovery steps for recovery of the amounts confirmed against the petitioner by the orders of the first appellate authority shall be kept in abeyance till such time as orders are passed by the Appellate Tribunal on the delay condonation application as directed and the order communicated to the appellant.
The writ appeal is disposed as above.
DR. A.K.JAYASANKARAN NAMBIAR
JUDGE SYAM KUMAR V.M. JUDGE smm
Recent GST High Court judgments
Search GST case law →- M/S N D Waddar And Co vs. Sri Gaurav GuptaKarnataka · 30 Oct 2026
- Kanwar Enterprises Private Limited vs. The Joint Commissioner - State TaxTelangana · 30 Oct 2026
- M/S. Bangi Mines And Minerals vs. The State Of TelanganaTelangana · 30 Oct 2026
- M/S. Arka Business Solutions vs. Principal Commissioner Of CustomsTelangana · 30 Oct 2026
- M/S. Mehra Mac Industries Private Limited vs. The Deputy State Tax OfficerTelangana · 30 Oct 2026
