VATTIYOORKAVU SERVICE CO-OPERATIVE BANK LIMITED vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER

In response to the submissions made by the petitioner's counsel, the learned Standing Counsel has informed the Court that the petitioner never filed any application for delay condonation. According to him, even at the time of his making the submissions, the petitioner's counsel never requested the appellate authority to condone the delay. Only under those compelling circumstances has the appellate authority been constrained, further submits the learned Standing Counsel, to dismiss the statutory appeal.

In reply, the petitioner's counsel does insist that the petitioner filed a delay condonation petition. But he eventually agreed that the alleged delay condonation petition had no departmental seal to establish that it had in fact been filed.

I cannot find fault with the approach the appellate authority has adopted. In the absence of any delay condonation petition, he cannot but dismiss the statutory appeal. Indeed there are decided cases that filing a delay condonation petition is a technicality; if the pleadings have reference to the delay, the authority or the judicial forum can consider that issue. Even for that, the petitioner must advance that argument, atleast, at the stage when the issue was sought to be decided on merits. Here, admittedly, even that was lacking.

I must also observe that the petitioner, a Co-Operative Bank, may have been represented by its employee for briefing the counsel and having the appeal filed before the appellate authority. In turn, the counsel may have—I am not sure—overlooked the heed of filing a delay condonation petition. The delay is only 23 days, though.

Under these circumstances, to let the petitioner suffer on technicality and for, presumably, the counsel's oversight will not serve the interest of justice. I, therefore, without finding fault with the appellate authority's approach, set aside the Ext.P9 and remand the matter to the appellate authority. If the petitioner files a delay condonation petition in two weeks from now, the authority will consider that on merits. To be sure, I also observe that this judgment contains no reference to the merits of the delay condonation petition. And it is for the appellate authority to decide it, using its discretion. In the interest of justice, in the meanwhile, the authorities will defer coercive steps. This Writ Petition is disposed of as above.