MR. ANTONY SUNNY, vs. THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS),

PDF · subscribers
WP(C)/8079/2024HC KeralaKLHC01087033202401 March 2024Author: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE D. K. SINGH4 pages
AI SummaryDismissed

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court held that there was no violation of the principles of natural justice and that the appellate order did not suffer from any manifest infirmity or illegality. The Court found the reason provided by the assessee for the significant delay of 115 days in filing the appeal, i.e., 'website problem', to be unconvincing and unsubstantiated by any evidence. The Court also noted the assessee's failure to respond to several notices issued by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) during the pendency of the appeal. Consequently, the Court found no merit in the writ petition and dismissed it. The operative direction was the dismissal of the writ petition, upholding the appellate order.

What were the facts?

The petitioner, Mr. Antony Sunny, filed a writ petition challenging an order dated 10.11.2023 passed by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) (NFAC). This order upheld an assessment order dated 28.12.2018 for assessment year 2016-17. The Assessing Officer had added Rs. 60,00,000/- to the assessee's returned business income of Rs. 20,99,452/-, resulting in a gross income of Rs. 80,99,452/-. The assessee filed an appeal against the assessment order with a delay of 115 days, citing 'website problem' as the sole reason. Despite receiving notices on the assessment order and demand on 28.12.2018, and subsequent notices from the Appellate Authority between November 2022 and October 2023, the assessee failed to provide evidence for the delay or respond to the notices.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) erred in dismissing the assessee's appeal on the ground of delay, contrary to the principles of natural justice, in light of the stated reason of 'website problem' for the delay in filing the appeal under Section 249 of the Income Tax Act, 1961? Assessee's Contention: The assessee contended that the dismissal of the appeal on grounds of delay violated the principles of natural justice and that the reason provided ('website problem') was sufficient. The assessee argued that the appellate order suffers from manifest infirmity or illegality. Revenue's Contention: The revenue, through the Standing Counsel, argued that the reason for the delay ('website problem') was not convincing and lacked supporting evidence. They also highlighted the assessee's failure to respond to multiple notices issued by the Appellate Authority, indicating a lack of diligence and engagement in the appellate process.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 143(3),Section 249

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 DINESH KUMAR SINGH FRIDAY, THE 1ST DAY OF MARCH 2024 / 11TH PHALGUNA, 1945 WP(C) NO. 8079 OF 2024 PETITIONER: MR. ANTONY SUNNY, AGED 41 YEARS, S/O. SUNNY V. A., RESIDING AT VELLARA HOUSE, NHAMANGHAT (PO), NAYARANGADI VYLATHURU, VADEKKEKAD CHAVAKKAD, KERALA, THRISSUR, PIN – 679563. BY ADVS. SMT. K. LATHA SMT. GAYATHRI NARENDRANATH SMT. MEERA MENON SRI. JOMTON F. PAYANKAN RESPONDENTS: 1 THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS), INCOME TAX DEPARTMENT, NATIONAL FACELESS APPEAL CENTRE (NFAC), ROOM NO. 245-A, NORTH BLOCK, NEW DELHI, PIN – 110001. 2 THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE 2(1), THRISSUR, AAYAKAR BHAVAN, SHAKTHAN THAMPURAN NAGAR, THRISSUR HO, THRISSUR, PIN – 680001. BY ADVS. SRI. P. G. JAYASHANKAR – STANDING COUNSEL SRI. G. KEERTHIVAS – STANDING COUNSEL THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 01.03.2024, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: WP(C) NO. 8079 OF 2024 2 DINESH KUMAR SINGH, J. -------------------------- W.P.(C) No. 8079 of 2024 ------------------------- Dated this the 1st day of March, 2024

JUDGMENT

1.

The present writ petition has been filed impugning the order in Exhibit P-6 dated 10.11.2023 passed in statutory appeal by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), Thrissur against the assessment order dated 28.12.2018 in Exhibit P-1 under Section 143 (3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 in respect of the assessment year 2016-17. The Assessing Officers had added Rs. 60,00,000/- to the Income from business as returned Rs. 20,99,452/- and gross income has been determined to be Rs. 80,99,452/-.

2.

The petitioner/assessee filed the appeal on 21.05.2019 against the assessment order dated 28.12.2018. The appeal was filed with delay of 115 days. The only reason for filing the appeal with delay was given is ‘website problem’. The assessment order and demand notices were duly served on the petitioner on 28.12.2018 itself. The Appellate Authority found the reasons for filing the appeal with huge delay of 115 days was not convincible. The petitioner failed to provide any evidence to the said reason (website problem). From 28.12.2018 to 27.01.2019. The petitioner was issued several notices

WP(C) NO. 8079 OF 2024 3 affording opportunity of hearing. The notices issued on 03.11.2022, 15.06.2023, 07.09.2023, 12.09.2023, 05.10.2023 and 25.10.2023 have been mentioned in the impugned order, which remained unreplied and unanswered. Considering the conduct of the petitioner and the reason given for filing the appeal with delay i.e. ‘website problem’, the Commissioner of Appeal has dismissed the appeal on the ground of delay.

3.

This Court does not find that there has been violation of the principles of natural justice as contended by the learned Counsel for the petitioner nor the orders suffers from any manifest infirmity or illegality which requires this Court to interfere with the appellate order passed by the 1st respondent. Thus, this Court finds no merit in this writ petition and hence, the same is hereby dismissed. DINESH KUMAR SINGH JUDGE Svn

WP(C) NO. 8079 OF 2024 4

Appendix — schedule of exhibits
APPENDIX OF WP(C) 8079/2024 PETITIONER’S EXHIBITS EXHIBIT P1 THE TRUE COPY OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2016-2017 DATED28-12-2018 EXHIBIT P2 THE TRUE COPY OF THE APPEAL IN FORM NO. 35 FILED BY THE PETITIONER AGAINST THE ASSESSMENT ORDER FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2014-2015 DATED 21.05.2019 EXHIBIT P3 THE TRUE COPY OF THE RESOLUTION DATED 10TH DAY OF JUNE 2022 PASSED BY ANY TIME MONEY PRIVATE LIMITED EXHIBIT P4 THE TRUE COPY OF THE CERTIFICATE ISSUED BY SUPERINTENDENT, CENTRAL PRISON & AMP; CORRECTIONAL HOME, KANNUR DATED 01/12/2023 EXHIBIT P5 THE TRUE COPY OF THE APPEAL HEARING NOTICE FOR THE YEAR 2015-2016 DATED 15-06-2023 EXHIBIT P5(A) THE TRUE COPY OF THE APPEAL HEARING NOTICE FOR THE YEAR 2015-2016 DATED 07-09-2023 EXHIBIT P5(B) THE TRUE COPY OF THE APPEAL HEARING NOTICE FOR THE YEAR 2015-2016 DATED 12-09-2023 EXHIBIT P5(C) THE TRUE COPY OF THE APPEAL HEARING NOTICE FOR THE YEAR 2015-2016 DATED 05-10-2023 EXHIBIT P5(D) THE TRUE COPY OF THE APPEAL HEARING NOTICE FOR THE YEAR 2015-2016 DATED 25-10-2023 EXHIBIT P6 THE TRUE COPY OF THE APPELLATE ORDER DATED 10- 11-2023 FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2016-2017 ISSUED BY THE FIRST RESPONDENT TO THE PETITIONER UNDER SECTION 250 OF THE INCOME TAX ACT EXHIBIT P7 THE TRUE COPY OF THE APPELLATE ORDER DATED 12-09- 2023 FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2014-2015 ISSUED BY THE FIRST RESPONDENT TO THE PETITIONER UNDER SECTION 250 OF THE INCOME TAX ACT EXHIBIT P8 THE TRUE COPY OF THE DEMAND NOTICE DATED 28-12- 2018 ISSUED BY THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE 2 (1), THRISSUR ISSUED UNDER SECTION 156 OF THE INCOME TAX ACT FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2016-2017

More judgments on Section 249

All 507 judgments and leading authorities on Section 249 →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →