KANIYATH POOTHAKANDY SURENDRAN,KUNNAMANGALAM vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 2(3) KOZHIKODE, KOZHIKODE

PDF · subscribers
ITA 356/COCH/2025Status: DisposedITAT Cochin23 June 2025AY 2014-15Bench: SHRI INTURI RAMA RAO (Accountant Member)3 pages

In favour of the Revenue: the assessee's appeal was dismissed. From the AI summary of this appeal.

AI SummaryDismissed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal found that the assessee did not show sufficient cause for the delay, as the reasons provided were not genuine and lacked evidence. Citing a Supreme Court judgment on the public policy behind laws of limitation, the Tribunal rejected the condonation petition and dismissed the appeal on the grounds of latches and delay.

What were the facts?

The assessee filed an appeal against a CIT(A) order for AY 2014-15 with a delay of 382 days. The assessee sought condonation of delay, citing that the delay occurred while exploring an alternative remedy under the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme 2024, which was subsequently rejected by the Commissioner of Income Tax.

What were the issues?

Whether there was sufficient cause for condoning the 382-day delay in filing the appeal before the ITAT, given the assessee's claim of exploring the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Cases cited in this judgment(1)Show list

Detected automatically from the text. Citations are also linked where they appear in the judgment. The count shows how many other judgments on BharatTax rely on the same authority.

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, COCHIN BENCH

Before: SHRI INTURI RAMA RAO, AM

For Respondent: Smt. Leena Lal, Sr. D.R
Hearing: 26.05.2025Pronounced: 23.06.2025

O R D E R This appeal filed by the assessee is directed against the order of the National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi [CIT(A)] dated 30.11.2023 for Assessment Year (AY) 2014-15.

2.

At the outset I find that there is a delay of 382 days in filing the appeal. The appellant filed a petition seeking condonation of delay by stating that the delay has occurred, as the appellant was exploring the alternative remedy of settling the dispute under the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme 2024. The appellant submitted a declaration in Form 1 under the scheme, which was summarily rejected by the Commissioner of Income

3.

On the other hand, the learned Sr. DR vehemently opposed to condonation of delay, as no sufficient cause was shown for the delay.

4.

I have carefully gone through the averments made in the petition seeking condonation of delay. From the averments made in the petition it is clear that the appellant had not shown any sufficient cause for the delay except giving some chronological events such as lack proper communication form the CIT(A), seeking alternative remedy under Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme, etc. Thus, the averments made in the petition seeking condonation are not genuine and does not really explain the reasons for the delay with evidence. Therefore, I am of the considered opinion that it is not a fit case to condone the delay of 382 days. In the case of Pundlilk Jalam Patil (dead) by LRs vs. Executive Engineer Jalgaon Medium Project [2008] 17 SCC 448, the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India held that basically the laws of limitation are founded on public policy and the courts have expressed at least three different reasons supporting the existence of statutes of limitation, namely (i) that long dormant claims have more of cruelty than justice in them, (ii) that a defendant might had lost the evidence to dispute the said claim, and (iii) that persons with good causes of action should pursue them with reasonable diligence. It was observed that the statutes of limitation are often called as statues of peace insofar as the unlimited and perpetual threat of limitation creates insecurity and uncertainty which are essential In the result, the appeals 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 →