T.R.SADANANDA BHAT vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

PDF · subscribers
ITA/206/2019HC KeralaKLHC01052362201905 March 2021Bench: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.V.BHATTI,HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE BECHU KURIAN THOMAS6 pages
AI SummaryDismissed

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court held that the appellant (assessee) was not serious in pursuing the remedy, especially after the Court had shown indulgence by condoning the abnormal delay of 2029 days. The appellant's failure to comply with the cost order of ₹10,000/- in each appeal, as directed by the Court on 02.03.2020, was the decisive factor. The Court found this non-compliance indicative of a lack of seriousness. Consequently, the appeals were dismissed. The ratio decidendi is that a litigant must demonstrate seriousness and compliance with court orders, particularly when seeking extraordinary relief like condonation of substantial delays. No costs were ordered. The merits of the ITAT order were not decided.

What were the facts?

These are two Income Tax Appeals (ITA Nos. 206 & 208 of 2019) filed by the assessee, T.R. Sadananda Bhat, proprietor of United Cargo Carriers, against the order dated 18.07.2013 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT), Cochin Bench, in ITA Nos. 413 & 414/Coch/2011. The appeals pertain to assessment years 2005-06 and 2007-08. The appeals were filed with a significant delay of 2029 days. The High Court of Kerala condoned this delay on 02.03.2020, subject to the appellant paying a cost of ₹10,000/- in each appeal to the Department within three weeks. However, the appellant failed to provide proof of payment of these costs as directed.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the High Court should entertain appeals filed with an inordinate delay of 2029 days, considering the assessee's failure to comply with the cost order imposed for condonation. The assessee argued for the condonation of delay, highlighting the pendency of the appeals before the Tribunal. The revenue's primary contention, implicitly, is that the delay is excessive and the assessee's subsequent non-compliance with the cost order demonstrates a lack of seriousness in pursuing the appeal, justifying dismissal. The judgment does not explicitly detail arguments from either side regarding the merits of the original ITAT order, focusing instead on the procedural aspect of the delay and cost compliance.

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

ITA Nos.206 & 208 of 2019 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.V.BHATTI & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE BECHU KURIAN THOMAS FRIDAY, THE 05TH DAY OF MARCH 2021 / 14TH PHALGUNA, 1942 ITA.No.206 OF 2019 AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT IN ITA 413/2011 OF I.T.A.TRIBUNAL,COCHIN BENCH APPELLANT: T.R.SADANANDA BHAT,AGED 65 YEARS PROPRIETOR, UNITED CARGO CARRIERS, FLAT NO.107, PANAMPILLY APARTMENTS, KOCHI-682 036,PAN - ADMPB6774F BY ADVS.MATHEWS K.UTHUPPACHAN SHRI.TERRY V.JAMES SRI.SHARAN SHAHIER RESPONDENT: THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, ERNAKULAM-682 018 R1 BY ADV. SRI.P.K.RAVINDRANATHA MENON (SR.) R1 BY SRI.JOSE JOSEPH, SC, FOR INCOME TAX THIS INCOME TAX APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 05.03.2021, ALONG WITH ITA.208/2019, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

ITA Nos.206 & 208 of 2019 2 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.V.BHATTI & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE BECHU KURIAN THOMAS FRIDAY, THE 05TH DAY OF MARCH 2021 / 14TH PHALGUNA, 1942 ITA.No.208 OF 2019 AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT IN ITA 414/2011 DATED 18-07-2013 OF I.T.A.TRIBUNAL,COCHIN BENCH APPELLANT/Appellant: T.R.SADANANDA BHAT,AGED 65 YEARS PROPRIETOR, UNITED CARGO CARRIERS, FLAT NO.107, PANAMPILLY APARTMENTS, KOCHI-682036, PAN.ADMPB 6774F BY ADVS. SRI.MATHEWS K.UTHUPPACHAN SHRI.TERRY V.JAMES SRI.SHARAN SHAHIER RESPONDENT/Respondent: THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, ERNAKULAM-682018 R1 BY ADV. SRI.P.K.RAVINDRANATHA MENON (SR.) R1 BY SRI.JOSE JOSEPH, SC, FOR INCOME TAX THIS INCOME TAX APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 05.03.2021, ALONG WITH ITA.206/2019, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

ITA Nos.206 & 208 of 2019 3 JUDGMENT [ ITA.206/2019, ITA.208/2019 ] Dated this the 5th day of March 2021 S.V.Bhatti, J. Assessee is the appellant. The instant Tax Appeals are filed aggrieved by the order dated 18.7.2013 in ITA Nos.413 & 414/Coch/2011 for the assessment years 2005-06 & 2007-08. The appeals were filed with a delay of 2029 days. On 2.3.2020, the delay was condoned subject to the appellant paying cost of `10,000/- in each appeal to the Department within three weeks from 2.3.2020. The appeals were listed for admission on 28.1.2021 and 22.2.2021. The appellant is unable to place before the Court proof of payment of costs to the Department as directed by this Court on 2.3.2020. We are of the view that the appellant is not serious in working out the remedy in spite of this Court showing indulgence

ITA Nos.206 & 208 of 2019 4 and condoning the abnormal delay of 2029 days. Hence Appeals fail. Dismissed. No order as to costs. Sd/- S.V.BHATTI JUDGE Sd/- BECHU KURIAN THOMAS JUDGE css/

ITA Nos.206 & 208 of 2019 5 APPENDIX OF ITA 206/2019 PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: ANNEXURE-A TRUE COPY OF ASSESSMENT ORDER DATED 31.12.2009 OF THE DY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE-2,ERNAKULAM ANNEXURE-B TRUE COPY OF ORDER DATED 31.1.2011 OF THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS)- III,KOCHI ANNEXURE-C CERTIFIED COPY OF COMMON ORDER DATED 18.7.2013 IN I.T.A.NO.413 AND 414/COCH/2011 OF THE HON'BLE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, COCHIN

ITA Nos.206 & 208 of 2019 6 APPENDIX OF ITA 208/2019 PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: ANNEXURE A TRUE COPY OF ASSESSMENT ORDER DATED 31.12.2009 OF THE DY.COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, ERNAKULAM, ANNEXURE B TRUE COPY OF ORDER DATED 31.1.2011 OF THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) III, KOCHI. ANNEXURE C TRUE COPY OF THE IMPUGNED COMMON ORDER DATED 18.7.2013 IN ITA NO.413 AND 414/COCH/2011 OF THE HON'BLE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, COCHIN.

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →