ALUVA CO-OPERATIVE AGRICULTURAL AND RURAL DEVELOPMENT BANK LTD. NO. E87 (FORMERFLY KNOWN AS THE ER vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER,

PDF · subscribers
WP(C)/9006/2024HC KeralaKLHC01088953202411 March 2024Author: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE GOPINATH P.5 pages
AI SummaryAllowed

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court held that the petitioner was entitled to succeed. It was not disputed that the 2nd respondent was the Appellate Authority on the date of filing the manual appeal. The only mistake committed by the petitioner was filing the appeal in manual form instead of online. The requirement for online filing was introduced only on March 1, 2016, and the manual appeal was filed on April 18, 2016. The court found that the mistake of filing in manual mode constituted sufficient cause for condonation of delay. Consequently, the writ petition was allowed, the order of dismissal of the condonation application (Ext.P6) was quashed, and the online appeal (Ext.P5) was restored to the file of the 3rd respondent. The 3rd respondent was directed to consider the appeal as filed within time, treating the date of manual filing as the date of filing, and dispose of the appeal on merits after affording a hearing.

What were the facts?

The petitioner, Aluva Co-operative Agricultural and Rural Development Bank Ltd., received an order of assessment dated March 29, 2016, for assessment year 2010-11. The petitioner filed an appeal manually before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) on April 18, 2016. Subsequently, realizing the appeal needed to be filed online, the petitioner filed an online appeal on November 3, 2016, along with an application for condonation of a 141-day delay. The delay was attributed to a genuine mistake of filing the initial appeal in manual form. The National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi, dismissed the application for condonation of delay. This led the petitioner to file a writ petition before the High Court of Kerala.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the High Court should condone the delay in filing the online appeal, considering the petitioner's submission of a genuine mistake in filing the initial appeal manually, and in light of the Supreme Court judgments in Collector Land Acquision v. MST Katiji and N.Balakrishnan v. M. Krishnamurthy, which advocate for a liberal approach in condoning delays when there is a reasonable explanation. Assessee's Contention: The petitioner argued that a strict approach should not be adopted when there is a reasonable explanation for the delay, and the power to condone delay should have been exercised in their favor given the facts and circumstances. They relied on the Supreme Court judgments mentioned above. Revenue's Contention: The revenue contended that the petitioner was aware of the requirement to file appeals online and not manually. Since the initial appeal was not filed before the competent authority, it should be considered as if no appeal was filed. Therefore, the petitioner correctly sought condonation of delay when filing the online appeal.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

None explicitly mentioned in the provided text, beyond general reference to the Income Tax Act, 1961.

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Cause title — parties, addresses and appearances
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE GOPINATH P. MONDAY, THE 11TH DAY OF MARCH 2024 / 21ST PHALGUNA, 1945 WP(C) NO. 9006 OF 2024 PETITIONER: ALUVA CO-OPERATIVE AGRICULTURAL AND RURAL DEVELOPMENT BANK LTD. NO. E87 (FORMERFLY 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. MENON MEERA V.MENON R.SREEJITH K.KRISHNA ACHYUTH MENON PARVATHY MENON PADMANATHAN K.V. RESPONDENTS: 1 INCOME TAX OFFICER INCOME TAX DEPARTMENT, WARD 1, ALUVA, PIN – 683101. 2 COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) INCOME TAX DEPARTMENT, POORNIMA BUILDING, PANAMPILLY NAGAR, KOCHI, PIN – 682036. 3 COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) NATIONAL FACELESS APPEAL CENTRE, DELHI - 110 001. BY ADVS. CHRISTOPHER ABRAHAM P.R.AJITH KUMAR(K/000708/1998) THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 11.03.2024, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: WP(C) NO. 9006 OF 2024 2

JUDGMENT The petitioner suffered Ext.P1 order of assessment dated 29.3.2016 under the provisions of the Income Tax Act, 1961 for the assessment year 2010-11. The petitioner filed Ext.P2 appeal before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), the 2nd respondent on 18.4.2016. Realising that the appeal has to be filed online, the petitioner filed Ext.P5 appeal along with an application for condonation of delay specifically mentioning that due to a genuine mistake, Ext.P2 appeal had been filed in manual form before the 2nd respondent and seeking to condone the delay of 141 days in filing the appeal. The 3rd respondent has however, dismissed the application for condonation of delay.

2.

The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit on the strength of the judgments of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Collector Land Acquision v. MST Katiji [AIR 1987 1353] and in N.Balakrishnan v. M. Krishnamurthy [1998 (7) SCC 123] to contend that when there is a reasonable explanation in support of the application for condonation of delay, a highly strict approach could not be adopted and the power to condone the delay

WP(C) NO. 9006 OF 2024 3 should have been exercised in favour of the petitioner in the facts and circumstances of the case.

3.

The learned Standing Counsel appearing for the Income Tax Department would submit that the petitioner is well aware that the appeal had to be filed online and not before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) in manual form. It is submitted that since the petitioner has not filed an appeal before the competent authority, it should be taken that there was no appeal filed and therefore, the petitioner had correctly sought for condonation of delay while filing the appeal before the 3rd respondent on 3.11.2016. 4. Having heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned Standing Counsel appearing for the Income Tax Department, I am of the view that the petitioner is entitled to succeed. It is not in dispute that on the date of filing of Ext.P2 appeal, the Appellate Authority was actually the 2nd respondent and not the 3rd respondent. The only mistake that was committed by the petitioner was that he had filed an appeal in manual form instead of filing it in online form. Immediately on WP(C) NO. 9006 OF 2024 4

coming to know the mistake, the petitioner filed an online appeal on 3.11.2016 along with an application for condonation of delay of 141 days which is the delay considering the date of assessment order and the date of filing of the appeal in the online form. The requirement of filing an appeal in online form was introduced only on 1.3.2016. The appeal filed manually in this case was filed on 18.4.2016, therefore I am clear in my mind that the mistake in filing the appeal in the manual mode constituted sufficient cause for condonation of delay in filing the appeal.

5.

Therefore, this writ petition is allowed. Ext.P6 order is quashed and Ext.P5 appeal will stand restored to the file of the 3rd respondent (to whom it has now been transferred). The 3rd respondent shall consider Ext.P5 appeal as one filed within time taking into consideration the date of filing of the appeal in manual form as the date of filing of the appeal and shall dispose of the appeal in accordance with law after affording an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. GOPINATH P. JUDGE Sru

WP(C) NO. 9006 OF 2024 5

Appendix — schedule of exhibits
APPENDIX OF WP(C) 9006/2024 PETITIONER’S EXHIBITS Exhibit P1 COPY OF ASSESSMENT ORDER ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPODNENT FOR THE YEAR 2010-11 DTD. 29-03- 2016. Exhibit P2 COPY OF APPEAL FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT DTD. 18-04-2016. Exhibit P3 COPY OF LOCAL DELIVERY BOOK EVIDENCING THE RECEIPT OF FILING APPEAL BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT DTD. 22-04-2016. Exhibit P4 COPY OF STAY PETITION FILED BY THE PETITIONER DTD. 18-04-2016. Exhibit P5 COPY OF APPEAL FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 3RD RESPONDENT DTD. 03-11-2016. Exhibit P6 COPY OF ORDER ISSUED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT DTD. 28-02-2024.

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →