BALAKRISHNAN MOOTHEDATH,PALAKKAD vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 1 & TPS, PALAKKAD, PALAKKAD

PDF · subscribers
ITA 746/COCH/2025Status: DisposedITAT Cochin25 November 2025AY 2016-17Bench: SHRI INTURI RAMA RAO (Accountant Member), SHRI MANU KUMAR GIRI (Judicial Member)1 pages

In favour of the Revenue: the assessee's appeal was dismissed. From the AI summary of this appeal.

AI SummaryDismissed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal found the reasons provided by the assessee for the 227-day delay in filing the appeal to be not bonafide and insufficient. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed in limine as being time-barred due to the unexcused delay.

What were the facts?

The assessee filed an appeal against an order of the CIT(A) for Assessment Year 2015-16, but there was a delay of 227 days in filing this appeal before the Tribunal. The assessee explained the delay by stating they were under the impression the matter was closed until receiving a Section 142(1) notice, which led their CA to inform them that the appeal was remanded and required filing before the Tribunal.

What were the issues?

Whether the 227-day delay in filing the appeal before the Tribunal was justified by bonafide and sufficient reasons, warranting condonation of delay.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 142(1)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, COCHIN BENCH - DB

Before: SHRI INTURI RAMA RAO, AM & SHRI MANU KUMAR GIRI, JM

For Respondent: Smt. Leena Lal, Sr. D.R
Hearing: 04.11.2025

Date of Hearing : 04.11.2025 Date of Pronouncement: : 25.11.2025 O R D E R

PER MANU KUMAR GIRI, JM:

1.

The captioned appeal filed by the assessee is directed against order of the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeal)/NFAC, Delhi [‘CIT(A)’ in short] dated 23.07.2025 for Assessment Year 2015-16.

2.

Registry has noted the delay on 227 days in filing appeal before this Tribunal. Assessee in the affidavit has given reason that “in January 2025, I was informed by my staff that an order is received. My accountant and I were under impression that the matter is closed.

However, subsequently I received notice under section 142(1) and my CA in Ekm advised me to meet him at his office on September 14th. He informed me that my appeal was remanded and the further appeal is to be preferred before the Hon’ble Tribunal as there are legal issues involved which is required to be agitated before the Hon’ble Tribunal for the first time.”

3.

We find that aforesaid reasons given for delayed filing of appeal is not bonafide and sufficient reason hence, we dismiss the appeal in limine as time barred.

4.

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed in limine.

Order pronounced in the open court on 25th November, 2025 at Cochin.

More judgments on Section 142(1)

All 17,244 judgments and leading authorities on Section 142(1) →

Latest GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →