MUNDACKAL ABDUL RAHMAN ASHRAF vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER

WP(C)/25875/2021HC KeralaKLHC01064782202126 July 2022Author: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE GOPINATH P.5 pages

AI SummaryRemanded

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court held that the Appellate Authority should have exercised its discretion to condone the delay of 12 days in filing the statutory appeal, considering the short duration of the delay. The Court also noted that the notice issued by the Appellate Authority under Section 250 of the Income Tax Act did not request the petitioner to upload any documents in support of the reason stated in the application for condonation of delay. Consequently, the order (Ext.P5) of the Appellate Authority was set aside. The delay of 12 days in filing the appeal (Ext.P2) was condoned, and the Appellate Authority (2nd respondent) was directed to hear and dispose of the appeal on merits after affording an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner in accordance with law. The issue of whether the petitioner had an effective alternative remedy was implicitly set aside by the Court's intervention on merits.

What were the facts?

The petitioner, Mundackal Abdul Rahman Ashraf, filed a writ petition before the High Court of Kerala challenging an order (Ext.P5) passed by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Center (NFAC). This order dismissed the petitioner's application for condonation of a 12-day delay in filing a statutory appeal against an assessment order (Ext.P1). The reason for dismissal was the petitioner's failure to furnish documents to prove his medical condition. The petitioner contended that the Appellate Authority, in its notice (Ext.P3) under Section 250 of the Income Tax Act, did not request medical documents, and therefore, the rejection was arbitrary. The respondent department argued that the petitioner had an effective alternative remedy before the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal and that the Appellate Authority's decision was justified due to the lack of genuine supporting documents for the medical condition.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the Appellate Authority erred in dismissing the petitioner's application for condonation of a 12-day delay in filing a statutory appeal, despite the delay being minimal and the notice issued under Section 250 of the Income Tax Act not explicitly requesting medical documents to support the delay claim? (Question of law and fact, concerning Section 250 of the Income Tax Act). Assessee's Contentions: - The Appellate Authority's notice (Ext.P3) under Section 250 of the Income Tax Act did not request the petitioner to upload any medical documents to support the claim for condonation of delay. - The rejection of the application for condonation of delay was arbitrary, given the short delay of 12 days. Revenue's Contentions: - The petitioner has an effective alternative remedy of appeal before the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, and thus, the writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is not maintainable. - The Appellate Authority was justified in not condoning the delay of 12 days as the petitioner's claim was not found genuine and was unsupported by sufficient documents proving his medical condition. - There was nothing illegal in the order (Ext.P5) passed by the Appellate Authority.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 250

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. TUESDAY, THE 26TH DAY OF JULY 2022 / 4TH SRAVANA, 1944 WP(C) NO. 25875 OF 2021 PETITIONER: MUNDACKAL ABDUL RAHMAN ASHRAF MUNDACKAL HOUSE, PALLIKKAVALA, MUDICKAL.P.O, PERUMBAVOOR-683 547, KERALA. BY ADVS. DIVYA RAVINDRAN LINCY GLANCY RESPONDENTS: 1 INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 1 & TPS, ALUVA RANGE, R.S.ROAD, ALUVA-683101, KERALA. 2 THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX(APPEALS), NATIONAL FACELESS APPEAL CENTER (NFAC), NEW DELHI-110 001. OTHER PRESENT: SRI. CHRISTOPHER ABRAHAM (SC) THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 26.07.2022, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: WP(C) NO. 25875 OF 2021 2

JUDGMENT

The petitioner has approached this Court being aggrieved by Ext.P5 order by which the petitioner application for condonation of delay in filing a statutory appeal before the 2th respondent against Ext. P1 order of assessment has been dismissed on the ground that the petitioner has not furnished documents to prove his medical condition and therefore the delay of 12 days in filing the appeal cannot be condoned.

The learned counsel for the petitioner states that the petitioner received Ext.P3 notice from the Appellate Authority requiring the petitioner to upload written submissions regarding the grounds taken in the appeal. It is submitted that Ext.P3 is a notice under Section 250 of the Income Tax Act and if any documents were to be filed before the Appellate Authority, the same would be shown as a list under the head ‘Annexures’ to Ext.P3 notice. It is submitted that the Appellate Authority did not ask the petitioner to upload any medical documents supporting the claim for WP(C) NO. 25875 OF 2021 3 condonation of delay for 12 days and arbitrarily rejected the application for condonation of delay.

The learned Standing Counsel appearing for the respondent department states that the petitioner has an effective alternative remedy of appeal against Ext.P5 before the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal and there is no reason for him to approach this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. It is submitted that the Appellate Authority had decided not to condone the delay of 12 days in filing the statutory appeal since the claim of the petitioner was not found genuine and was unsupported by sufficient documents proving the medical condition of the petitioner. It is submitted that there is nothing illegal in Ext.P5 order.

Having heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Standing Counsel for the respondent, I am of the view that considering the fact that the delay in filing the statutory appeal was only 12 days, the Appellate Authority should have exercised his discretion to condone the said delay and to hear the appeal on merits. That apart the notice issued by the Appellate Authority under Section 250 of the WP(C) NO. 25875 OF 2021 4 Income Tax Act shows that he had not requested for uploading any documents in support of the reason stated in the application for condonation of delay. In the result Ext.P5 order is set aside. The delay of 12 days in filing Ext.P2 will stand condoned and the Appellate Authority (2nd respondent) shall hear and dispose of Ext.P2 appeal after affording an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner in accordance with law. Writ petition is disposed of as above. GOPINATH P.

JUDGE ats

WP(C) NO. 25875 OF 2021 5

Appendix — schedule of exhibits

APPENDIX OF WP(C) 25875/2021 PETITIONER EXHIBITS Exhibit P1 TRUE COPY OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER DATED 7.12.2019 PASSED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT. Exhibit P2 TRUE COPY OF MEMORANDUM OF APPEAL FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE CIT(A)-II, KOCHI. Exhibit P3 TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE DATED 26.07.2021 SENT BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT. Exhibit P4 TRUE COPY OF THE REPLY UPLOADED BY THE PETITIONER ON 28.07.2021. Exhibit P5 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 4.08.2021, ISSUED UNDER SECTION 250 OF THE ACT BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT. Exhibit P6 TRUE COPY OF THE MEDICAL CERTIFICATE DATED 2.11.2021, OBTAINED FROMTHE DOCTOR. RESPONDENTS’ EXHIBITS: NIL

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →