BALAKRISHNAN MOOTHEDATH,PALAKKAD vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 1 & TPS, PALAKKAD, PALAKKAD
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.
Held
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.
Key Issues
Whether the 227-day delay in filing the appeal before the Tribunal was justified by bonafide and sufficient reasons, warranting condonation of delay.
Sections Cited
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
IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL COCHIN BENCH - DB
BEFORE SHRI INTURI RAMA RAO, AM AND SHRI MANU KUMAR GIRI, JM
ITA No. 746/Coch/2025 Assessment Year: 2015-16 Balakrishnan Moothedath, .......... Appellant Moothedath House, Panayur, Vaniamkulam, Ottappalam, Palakkad, vs. Kerala- 679 522. [PAN: AKTPB6565C]
Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(1)& TPS, .......... Respondent Palakkad. Assessee by: ------- None ------- Revenue by: Smt. Leena Lal, Sr. D.R.
Date of Hearing : 04.11.2025 Date of Pronouncement: : 25.11.2025 O R D E R PER MANU KUMAR GIRI, JM: 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.
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.”
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.
In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed in limine.
Order pronounced in the open court on 25th November, 2025 at Cochin.
Sd/- Sd/- (INTURI RAMA RAO) (MANU KUMAR GIRI) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER Cochin, Dated: 25th November, 2025 K.B Copy to: 1. The Appellant 2. The Respondent 3. The Pr. CIT concerned 4. The Sr. DR, ITAT, Cochin 5. Guard File
