THE KANNUR DISTRICT MERCHANTS CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETY LIMITED,KANNUR vs. ITO, WARD 1 AND TPS, KANNUR
In favour of the Revenue: the assessee's appeal was dismissed. From the AI summary of this appeal.
What did the Tribunal hold?
The Tribunal found the assessee's explanation for the delay not bona fide, deeming it unbelievable that the email remained unchecked for nearly a year. Citing the Supreme Court's decision in Mrinmoy Maity v. Chhanda Koley, which discourages granting extraordinary relief to litigants who delay in asserting their rights, the Tribunal dismissed the appeal in limine due to the delay, rendering the stay application infructuous.
What were the facts?
The assessee filed an appeal against an order of the CIT(A) for Assessment Year 2020-21, incurring a delay of 219 days. The assessee sought condonation of this delay, claiming ignorance of the order's service through the Income Tax Portal, asserting that no real-time alert or authenticated copy was sent to their registered email address.
What were the issues?
Whether the delay of 219 days in filing the appeal should be condoned, and whether the assessee's explanation for the delay was bona fide.
Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?
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
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 [CIT(A)] dated 21.05.2024 for Assessment Year (AY) 2020-21.
At the outset, we find there is delay of 219 days in filing the appeal. The appellant is only seeking condonation of delay pleading ignorance of the order passed by the learned CIT(A). It is stated that the order was served through Income Tax Portal and not real time alert or authenticated copy of order was served to the registered email address of the appellant. From the above submission it is not & SA No. 30/Coch/2025 The Kannur District Merchants Co-op. Society Ltd. clear as to how the appellant had suddenly became aware of the order passed by the learned CIT(A) nearly after one year and it is unbelievable that the appellant had not checked the email for almost a year. In the circumstances, the explanation offered by the appellant is not bona fide. Therefore, 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 view of the above judgement, we are of the considered opinion that this is not a fit case for condoning the delay, hence, the appeal is dismissed in limine on the ground of delay.
Since the appeal of the assessee is dismissed, the stay application becomes infructuous.
In the result, the appeal and stay application filed by the assessee stand dismissed.
Order pronounced in the open court on 23rd June, 2025.
Recent GST High Court judgments
Search GST case law →- M/S. Nanda Contruction PVT. LTD., Angul vs. Additional Commissioner, GST And Central Excise Commissionerate, SundergarhOrissa · 28 Oct 2026
- M/S Utkal Suppliers,Ganjam vs. Assistant Commissioner Of CT And GST, Ganjam-I Circle,GanjamOrissa · 28 Oct 2026
- M/S Kotdwar Steel Limited vs. Office Of Hte Deputy CommissionerUttarakhand · 28 Oct 2026
- M/S Kotdwar Steel Limited vs. Office Of The Deputy CommissionerUttarakhand · 28 Oct 2026
- M/S Kotdwar Steel Limited vs. Office Of The Deputy CommissionerUttarakhand · 28 Oct 2026
