Loading judgment…
Facts
The assessee filed an appeal before the Tribunal with a delay of 530 days. The assessee's counsel contended that the delay was due to waiting for an order from the Assessing Officer on a section 154 application, and a bonafide belief that the AO had made errors in giving effect to the CIT(A) order.
Held
The Tribunal noted that the assessee, a co-operative bank with legal panel, could not claim a bonafide belief for the delay. Medical prescriptions provided did not consistently support the claim of prolonged ill health, and the timeline of events suggested the assessee was not incapacitated during the limitation period.
Key Issues
Condonation of delay in filing the appeal due to alleged bonafide belief and health issues.
Sections Cited
154
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Detected automatically from the text. The count shows how many other judgments on BharatTax rely on the same authority.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, COCHIN BENCH, COCHIN
Before: S/SHRI INTURI RAMA RAO & SHRI PRAKASH CHAND YADAV
PER PRAKASH CHAND YADAV, JUDICIAL MEMBER:
The present appeal of the assessee is arising from the order of the ld Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeal) NFAC, Delhi, dated 10.1.2024 having DIN No.ITBA/APL/S/250/2023-24/1059552577(1) and relates to assessment year 2016-17.
At the outset, we observe that there is a delay of 530 days in filing the appeal before the Tribunal, for which, ld counsel for the assessee has contended that the assessee was waiting for the order of Page 2 of 5 the Assessing Officer to be passed in response to the application of the assessee u/s 154, filed by assessee against the order of the AO passed while giving effect to the order of the ld CIT(A). It is contended by ld AR that the assessee was under bonafide belief that the Assessing Officer has committed certain errors, while giving effect to the order of the CIT(A) and hence the AO is duty bound to pass a correct order u/s 154 and thereafter the assessee has to file before the ITAT.
On the contrary, ld Sr DR strongly objected to the condonation of delay in the present appeal. Ld Sr DR contended that the assessee is a Co-operative Bank having panel of lawyers with the assessee and hence, he cannot claim that he was under bonafide belief that the appeal is to be filed after 154 order passed by the Assessing Officer and that too against such order which the AO has passed while giving effect to the order of the CIT(A). Ld Sr DR also pointed out that there is an inordinate delay in the present case and, therefore, the Bench must exercise its discretion without any leniency.
We have considered the rival submissions and perused the materials available on record. It is settled position of law that the power to condone the delay should be exercised having regard to the facts of the case and the power cannot be exercised to frustrate the substantial law of limitation as rendered by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in .
Page 3 of 5 H.Guruswamy & Ors, in Civil Appeal No.317 of 2025. The Hon’ble Apex Court in yet another case of Mool Chandra v. Union of India, 2024 SCC OnLine SC 1878, decided on 5-8-2024 has held that it is not the length of the delay rather the cause behind the delay, which is to be seen while condoning the delay. We would like to refer to the decision of Co- ordinate Bench of this ITAT in the case of Koothery Narayanan Vijayan to 981/Coach/24 order dated 30.5.2025, wherein, it has been observed as under:
“5. After considering the rival submission, we observe that it is pertinent to note that the documents produced by the assessee were not in strict sense the medical certificates rather medical prescription of the assessee, we would further like to mention certain dates which goes to the root of the matter, for judging whether the contention of assessee of keeping ill health is correct or not. A perusal of the Medical Prescription dated 17.12.2023 would show that the assessee was having some problems in his spine and the doctor advised him for 3 weeks bed rest. Three weeks probably end by 08.01.2024, afterwards the other medical prescription dated 02.02.2024 and 06.06.2024 would nowhere show that the assessee was advised complete bed rest. The order of the CIT(A) is dated 08.02.2024. Which means period of limitation for filing the appeals was ending on 07.04.2024, during this period the assessee was absolutely fine as evident from the fact that the assessee had visited the doctor on 06.06.2024. Second contention of the assessee is that the tax consultant Mr Madhu failed to take note of the order of the CIT(A). However there is no separate affidavit from Mr Madhu supporting the contention of the assessee, neither the assessee has made any complaint to any statutory body. It is settled position of law that power to condone delay should be exercised having regard to the facts of the case, the power cannot be exercised to frustrate the substantial law of limitation as held by the Apex Court recently in the case of H. Guruswamy Vs A.Krishna Civil appeal number 317 of 2025. The Hon’ble Apex Court in yet another case of Mool Chandra v. Union of India, 2024 SCC OnLine SC 1878, decided on 5-8- 2024] has held that it is not the length of the delay rather the cause behind the delay, which is to be seen while condoning the delay. In the case of Commissioner, Nagar Parishad, Bhilwara v. Labour Court, .
Bhilwara, (2009) 3 SCC 525, it was opined that while deciding an application for condonation of delay the High Court ought not to have gone into the merits of the case. “If negligence can be attributed to the appellant, then necessarily the delay which has not been condoned by the Tribunal and affirmed by the High Court deserves to be accepted. However, if no fault can be laid at the doors of the appellant and cause shown is sufficient then we are of the considered view that both the Tribunal and the High Court were in error in not adopting a liberal approach or justice-oriented approach to condone the delay”. In the present case the cause responsible for the delay would not fall under the ambit of “reasonable cause”. Therefore, we are not convinced with the reasons given by the assessee for condonation of appeal, and hence, the present appeal is dismissed as barred by limitation.”
In our view here is a case of negligence attributable to assessee.
Therefore, following our own view as quoted above, we hereby dismiss the appeal of the assessee as barred by limitation.