M/S. KUMBALERI SANDS,WAYAND vs. ITO, WARD 2, KALPETTA

PDF · subscribers
ITA 16/COCH/2025Status: DisposedITAT Cochin30 May 2025AY 2016-17Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao (Accountant Member), Shri Prakash Chand Yadav (Judicial Member)3 pages

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

AI SummaryAllowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The ITAT held that the CIT(A) erred by not excluding the Covid period from the delay. It found reasonable cause for the delay, noting that the Assessing Officer's order was not served in time, and condoned the delay, restoring the matter to the CIT(A) for fresh decision.

What were the facts?

The assessee's appeals for AYs 2015-16 and 2016-17 were dismissed by the CIT(A) due to a delay of 1428 days in filing. The assessee argued that after excluding the Covid period, the delay was 653 days, and the original Assessing Officer's order was not served in time.

What were the issues?

Whether the CIT(A) was justified in not condoning the delay in filing appeals, considering the impact of the Covid-19 pandemic and the non-service of the Assessing Officer's order.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, COCHIN BENCH, COCHIN

Before: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri Prakash Chand Yadav

Pronounced: 30.05.2025

Heard together (2 matters)

ITA No.16/Coch/2025
ITA No.37/Coch/2025

Read from the judgment's own cause title. This page is filed under one of them.

: Asst.Year 2015-2016 Kumbaleri Sands The Income Tax Officer Kumbaleri Post v. Ward – 2 Meenangadi Kalpetta. Wayanad – 673 591. PAN : AALFK8503F. (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant by : Sri.Hrithwik D.N., Advocate Respondent by : Smt.Leena Lal, Senior AR Date of Pronouncement : 30.05.2025 Date of Hearing : 27.05.2025. O R D E R

Per Prakash Chand Yadav, JM :

1.

The present appeals of the assessee are arising from the orders of the National Faceless Appeal Centre / learned Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals [“CIT(A)” for short] dated 16.12.2024, having DIN & Order No.ITBA/NFAC/S/250/ 2024-25/1071256420(1) & 1071267860(1) and relates to the assessment years 2015-2016 and 2016-2017, respectively.

2.

At the outset, it is observed that the assessee is a firm and engaged in the business of crushing and selling of various stones, could not file the appeal against the order of Assessing Officer before the CIT(A) in time, and there was a delay of 1428 days before the CIT(A). The CIT(A) dismissed the appeal of the & 37/Coch/2025. Kumbaleri Sands. assessee on the ground that the reasons given by the assessee are not constituting reasonable cause. It is the contention of the assessee that the delay of 1428 days included the Covid period of two years and if one would exclude the Covid period, the delay would be 653 days only. The learned Counsel for the assessee craves for one more opportunity before the CIT(A).

3.

The learned DR relied upon the orders of the authorities below.

4.

After considering the rival submissions, we observe that the CIT(A) was not correct in dismissing the appeal without excluding the period of Covid from the total period of delay. If one would exclude the period of covid from the total period of delay then the total delay is only 653 days before the Ld CIT(A). We have seen the reasons given by the assessee for the period of delay before the CIT(A) and convinced that there was reasonable cause for the delay in as much as the order of the AO was not served on the assessee in time, this averment has not been refuted by the DR. Therefore we hereby condone the delay and restore the matter to the file of CIT(A) for deciding fresh.

5.

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes.

Order pronounced on this 30th day of May, 2025.

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →