Loading judgment…
Facts
The assessee, a co-operative society, appealed against an addition made by the AO under Section 143(3) for unexplained cash deposits during demonetisation, which was later enhanced by the CIT(A). The appeal to the Tribunal was filed with a delay of 310 days.
Held
The Tribunal dismissed the appeal on grounds of delay and latches, finding the assessee's explanation for the 310-day delay in filing the appeal not bona fide and indicative of negligence. The request for condonation of delay was rejected, citing a Supreme Court precedent.
Key Issues
Whether the delay of 310 days in filing the appeal should be condoned based on the explanation provided by the assessee.
Sections Cited
143(3)
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, COCHIN BENCH
Before: SHRI INTURI RAMA RAO, AM & SHRI PRAKASH CHAND YADAV, JM
Assessment Year: 2017-18 Janatha Charitable Society .......... Appellant Vellur P.O., Taliparamba, Kannur 670346 [PAN: AAATJ1840K] vs. The Income Tax Officer, Circle – 1, Kannur .......... Respondent Appellant by: Shri Arun Raj S., Advocate Respondent by: Smt. Leena Lal, Sr. D.R. Date of Hearing: 21.05.2025 Date of Pronouncement: 27.06.2025 O R D E R Per: Inturi Rama Rao, AM This appeal filed by the assessee is directed against the order of the National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi, dated 22.09.2023 for Assessment Year (AY) 2017-18.
Brief facts of the case are that the appellant is a co-operative society engaged in the business of procuring and marketing of milk and production of allied products. The return of income for AY 2017-18 was filed on 08.09.2017 declaring income of Rs. 4,90,21,490/-. Against the said return of income, the assessment was Janatha Charitable Society completed by the ITO, Circle-1, Kannur (hereinafter called "the AO") vide order dated 25.12.2018 passed u/s. 143(3) of the Act at a total income of Rs. 5,07,16,894/-. While doing so, the AO made addition on account of cash deposit made in Specified Bank Notes (SBN) during demonetisation period of Rs. 12,12,419/- for the failure of the appellant to discharge the onus of proving the source of cash deposit.
Being aggrieved, an appeal was filed before the CIT(A), who vide the impugned order enhanced the addition to Rs. 15,71,000/-.
Being aggrieved, the appellant is in appeal before this Tribunal in the present appeal.
At the outset we find that there is a delay in filing the present appeal by 310 days. The appellant had filed a petition seeking condonation of delay stating that the order passed by the National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi (NFAC) was served through email and the appellant had came to know about the order passed by the NFAC only when the assessee was informed by the jurisdictional officer. The explanation furnished by the appellant is generic. No details, as to how the jurisdictional AO called upon the appellant to state about the order passed by the NFAC and when the jurisdictional AO informed the appellant was not given. In this situation, we are of the considered opinion that the reasons offered by the appellant are not bona fide and the appellant is guilty of negligence in pursuing legal Janatha Charitable Society remedies. Keeping in view the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Mrinmoy Maity v. Chhanda Koley [2024] SCC OnLine SC 551 wherein the Hon’ble Supreme Court observed that an litigant who approach the court belatedly or in other words sleeps over his rights for a considerable period of time, wakes up from his deep slumber ought not to be granted the extraordinary relief as delay is defined as guilty.
In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed on the ground of delay and latches.
Order pronounced in the open court on 27th June, 2025.