Loading judgment…
Facts
The assessee filed two appeals against orders of the CIT(A) for Assessment Years 2016-17 and 2017-18, which were delayed by 340 days. The assessee sought condonation of this delay, attributing it to the demise of their Chartered Accountant in September 2022.
Held
The Tribunal dismissed the appeals, refusing to condone the delay. It observed that the CIT(A) orders were passed in 2024, well after the CA's demise in 2022, and were served via e-mail, rendering the reason for delay unconvincing and insufficient.
Key Issues
Whether there was sufficient cause to condone the 340-day delay in filing appeals before the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal.
Sections Cited
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: SHRI INTURI RAMA RAO & SHRI PRAKASH CHAND YADAV
Date of Hearing : 28.05.2025 Date of Pronouncement : 23.06.2025 O R D E R PERPRAKASH CHAND YADAV, JUDICIAL MEMBER:
These two appeals of the assessee are arising from the order of ld. CIT(A) dated 5.3.2024 having DIN & Order No.ITBA/APL/S/250/2023-24/1061998217(1) for the AY 2016-17 and dated 23.1.2024 having DIN & Order No.ITBA/NFAC/S/250/2023-24/1060034169(1) for the AY 2017- 18.
At the outset, we observe that there is a delay of 340 days in filing the present appeals. Drawing attention of the bench towards the condonation petition, counsel for the assessee pointed out that the Chartered Accountant Mr. Gopal Krishna passed away on 21.9.2022 and hence the staff of the erstwhile CA could not be able & 276/Coch/2025 Chandramoulieswara Charitable Trust, Trivendrum Page 2 of 4 to communicate the assessee about the order passed by the ld. CIT(A).
Ld. D.R. appearing on behalf of the revenue pointed out that the orders of ld. CIT(A) is dated 5.3.2024 and 23.1.2024. Therefore, the arguments of the assessee that the counsel who is handling the matters, passed away in 2022 is of no relevance. Ld. D.R. pointed out that the orders of ld. CIT(A) were duly served on the assessee via e-mail.
We have heard the rival submissions and perused the materials available on record. It is settled position of law that it is cause of delay, which is to be considered by the court while adjudicating the application for condonation of delay and not the length of the delay. When we testified the reason given by the assessee with respect to the condonation of delay application, we are not convinced, for the simple reason that the CA was passed away before the passing of the orders by the ld. CIT(A) and hence we dismiss these appeals on the ground of delay itself. Further, we would like to refer to the recent judgement of the coordinate bench of Cochin Tribunal in the case of KoootheryNarayanANVijayan Vs. ITO in to 981/Coch/2024 vide order dated 30.5.2025, wherein the coordinate bench in para 5 has 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 & 276/Coch/2025 Chandramoulieswara Charitable Trust, Trivendrum Page 3 of 4 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 MrMadhu failed to take note of the order of the CIT(A). However, there is no separate affidavit from MrMadhu 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 he 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. “Ifnegligence can be attributed to the appellant, then necessarilythe delay which has not been condoned by the Tribunal andaffirmed by the High Court deserves to be accepted. However,if no fault can be laid at the doors of the appellant and causeshown is sufficient then we are of the considered view that boththe Tribunal and the High Court were in error in not adoptinga liberal approach or justice-oriented approach to condone thedelay”. 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”.
4.1. Following the above view of the coordinate Bench, we dismiss these appeals.
In the result, appeals filed by the assessee are dismissed.
Order pronounced in the open court on 23rd Jun, 2025