THIRUNALLOOR SERVICE CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER (NFAC)

WP(C)/19140/2024HC KeralaKLHC01109419202403 June 2024Author: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE MURALI PURUSHOTHAMAN5 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What were the facts?

The petitioner, Thirunalloor Service Co-operative Bank Ltd., an assessee under the Income Tax Act, 1961, filed an appeal (Ext.P3) before the Income Tax Commissioner (Appeals) against an assessment order (Ext.P1) passed by the Income Tax Officer (NFAC) under Section 143(3). The appeal was filed with a delay of 18 days, for which the petitioner submitted an application for condonation of delay (Ext.P4). The Commissioner (Appeals), by Ext.P5 order, dismissed the delay condonation application, citing lack of sufficient cause, and consequently dismissed the appeal in limine. The petitioner sought intervention from the High Court of Kerala.

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court held that the petitioner had stated sufficient reasons in their application for condonation of delay. The Court found that the Commissioner (Appeals) had taken a technical view in dismissing the application and consequently the appeal. The Court observed that the Commissioner (Appeals) erred in dismissing the appeal at the threshold on technical grounds. Accordingly, the High Court set aside the order of the Commissioner (Appeals) (Ext.P5) and directed the Commissioner (Appeals) to consider the appeal on its merits expeditiously, within three months from the date of receipt of the judgment. The Court also granted a stay on recovery steps against the petitioner pursuant to the assessment order (Ext.P1) until orders were passed on the appeal. No issue was expressly left undecided.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the Commissioner (Appeals) erred in dismissing the application for condonation of delay for filing the appeal, thereby dismissing the appeal in limine, on the ground of insufficient cause, when the petitioner had provided reasons for the delay. Assessee's Contention: The petitioner argued that the delay of 14 days (as stated in Ext.P4, though the order mentions 18 days) was occasioned due to reasons beyond their control, specifically the time taken to obtain full-fledged interest statements from the government auditor and seek clarifications regarding interest earned from other co-operative banks. They contended that their conduct was neither wilful nor contumacious and that they had a good case on merits. The petitioner submitted that they had stated sufficient reasons in the application for condonation of delay. Revenue's Contention: The judgment does not record any specific contentions made by the revenue in response to the writ petition. However, the Commissioner (Appeals)'s order (Ext.P5) reflects the revenue's stance that the petitioner had not shown sufficient cause for the delay.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 143(3)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE MURALI PURUSHOTHAMAN MONDAY, THE 3RD 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: 1 INCOME TAX OFFICER (NFAC) NATIONAL FACELESS ASSESSMENT CENTRE, NORTH BLOCK, NEW DELHI, PIN – 110 001. 2 INCOME TAX COMMISSIONER (APPEALS), NATIONAL FACELESS ASSESSMENT CENTRE, NORTH BLOCK, NEW DELHI, PIN – 110 001. SRI. CHRISTOPHER ABRAHAM SRI. P.R.AJITHKUMAR - SC THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 03.06.2024, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

WP(C).No.19140 OF 2024 2 JUDGMENT The petitioner Society is an assessee under the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short, ‘the Act’). Against Ext.P1 order of assessment passed by the 1st respondent under Section 143(3) of the Act, the petitioner preferred Ext.P3 appeal before the 2nd respondent along with Ext.P4 application for condonation of delay. The 2nd respondent, by Ext.P5 order, dismissed Ext.P4 application f

The order continues below.

Read the full judgment

A free account opens 10 full judgments a month. Re-reading one you have already opened does not count again.

Create a free accountSign in

See plans and prices

The summary, the parties, the sections and the citations above are open to everyone and always will be. Only the text of the order and the PDF are metered.

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →