M/S.ST ALPHONSA TIMBER vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER(TDS)
What did the High Court hold?
The High Court allowed the writ appeal, setting aside the learned Single Judge's judgment. The Court found that the statutory provisions do empower the Appellate Tribunal to condone the delay in question. The Tribunal was directed to consider and pass orders on the appellant's delay condonation application (Ext.P5) within two months of receiving a copy of the judgment. Recovery steps for amounts confirmed by the first appellate authority were to be kept in abeyance until the Tribunal passed its order on the delay condonation application and communicated it to the appellant. The issue of whether the delay would ultimately be condoned and the appeal admitted on merits was not decided by the High Court.
What were the facts?
The appellant, Paravur Service Co-operative Bank Ltd., filed a writ petition before the Kerala High Court challenging an order of the First Appellate Authority under the Income Tax Act. The bank had filed an appeal (Ext.P3), a stay petition (Ext.P4), and a delay condonation application (Ext.P5) before the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT). The limited prayer in the writ petition was for a direction to the ITAT to consider and pass orders on the delay condonation application and to stay recovery proceedings until the ITAT decided on the delay. The learned Single Judge dismissed the writ petition, assuming the ITAT lacked the power to condone the delay.
What were the issues?
1. Whether the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal has the power to condone the delay in filing an appeal, as per the provisions of the statute? Assessee's Contention: The appellant argued that the Appellate Tribunal possesses the statutory power to condone the delay in filing an appeal. This power is discretionary and must be exercised based on the statutory provisions and by considering the assessee's explanation for the delay. Revenue's Contention: The judgment does not record any specific arguments made by the revenue's Standing Counsel regarding the ITAT's power to condone delay. The revenue was represented by its Standing Counsel.
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT THE HONOURABLE DR. JUSTICE A.K.JAYASANKARAN NAMBIAR & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SYAM KUMAR V.M. MONDAY, THE 3RD DAY OF JUNE 2024 / 13TH JYAISHTA, 1946 WA NO. 738 OF 2024 AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT DATED IN WP(C) NO.17762 OF 2024 OF HIGH COURT OF KERALA APPELLANT/PETITIONER THE PARAVUR SERVICE CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD. NO.1801 REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, PARAVUR P.O, KOLLAM DISTRICT, PIN - 691301 BY ADVS. ARJUN RAGHAVAN T.R.HARIKUMAR POOJA PANKAJ RESPONDENT/RESPONDENT 1 THE INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-2, OFFICE OF THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, AAYAKAR BHAVAN, KARBALA JUNCTION, KOLLAM., PIN - 691350 2 THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) NATIONAL FACELESS APPEAL CENTRE, NORTH BLOCK, DELHI., PIN - 110001 3 THE REGISTRAR, INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL COCHIN BENCH, KENDRIYA BHAVAN, BLOCK NO.C1 & C2, 1ST FLOOR, KAKKANAD, COCHIN., PIN - 682030 OTHER PRESENT: SC-P.G.JAYASHANKAR. THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 03.06.2024, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
W.A.No.738 of 2024 2
J U D G M E N T ============
Dr. A.K.Jayasankaran Nambiar, J. This appeal has been preferred by the appellant- Co-operative Bank aggrieved by the judgment dated 23.05.2024 of a learned Single Judge in W.P(C)No.17762 of 2024. 2. The brief facts necessary for disposal of this writ appeal are as follows: The appellant herein had approached the writ court against an order of the First Appellate Authority under the Income Tax Act, against which order they had preferred Ext.P3 appeal, Ext.P4 stay petition and Ext.P5 delay condonation application before the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal. 3. The limited prayer in the writ petition was for a
W.A.No.738 of 2024 3 direction to the Appellate Tribunal to consider and pass orders on Ext.P5 delay condonation application and to stay the recovery proceedings for recovery of amounts confirmed against the appellant by the first appellate order, till such time as the Tribunal had an occassion to consider and pass orders on the dealy condonation applicaton. 4. The learned Single Judge, proceeding on the assumption that the Appellate Tribunal did not have a power to condone the delay in question, thought it appropriate to dismiss the writ petition. It is against the said judgment of the learned Single Judge that the appellant is before us in this appeal. 5. We have heard Sri.Arjun Raghavan, the learned counsel for the appellant and Sri.P.G.Jayashankar, the learned Standing Counsel for the Income Tax Department. 6. It is the submission of Sri.Arjun Raghavan, the learned counsel for the appellant that, as per the provisions of the statute, the Appellate Tribunal has the power to condone
W.A.No.738 of 2024 4 the delay in question and it is a discretionary power that has to be exercised based on the provisions of the statute and by considering the explanation of the assessee for the delay. Taking note of the said submission and finding that the statutory provisions empower the Tribunal to condone the delay in question, we deem it appropriate to allow the writ appeal, by setting aside the impugned judgment of the learned Single Judge, and with the following directions: The Appellate Tribunal, before which Ext.P3 appeal, Ext.P4 stay petition and Ext.P5 delay condondation application preferred by the appellant are pending, shall consider and pass orders on Ext.P5 delay condonation application within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. The recovery steps for recovery of the amounts confirmed against the petitioner by the orders of the first appellate authority shall be kept in abeyance till such time as orders are passed by the Appellate Tribunal on the delay condonation application as directed and the order communicated to the appellant.
W.A.No.738 of 2024 5 The writ appeal is disposed as above. Sd/-
DR. A.K.JAYASANKARAN NAMBIAR
JUDGE
Sd/- SYAM KUMAR V.M. JUDGE smm
Recent GST High Court judgments
Search GST case law →- Dinesh Dash vs. State Of OdishaOrissa · 3 Nov 2026
- M/S.Ishwar Chandra Barik, Keonjhar vs. Commissioner(Appeal), GST, Central Excise And Customs, BhubaneswarOrissa · 3 Nov 2026
- M/S.Surveillance System, Sambalpur vs. Commissioner Of CT And GST Odisha , CT And GST Commissionerate , Cuttack OdishaOrissa · 3 Nov 2026
- M/S.Himansu Palei vs. Assistant Commissioner Central GST CBIC Keonjhar Division, KeonjharOrissa · 3 Nov 2026
- M/S. Access Worldwide Cargo vs. The Commissioner Of CustomsKarnataka · 3 Nov 2026