SAIDA,KOLLAM vs. ITO,WARD 2, KOLLAM
Facts
The assessee, Saida, Saida Trading Co., filed an appeal against the CIT(A)'s order for AY 2015-16. There was an inordinate delay of 1233 days in filing the appeal, for which a condonation application was submitted stating the assessee's absence from station as the reason, without a supporting affidavit.
Held
The Tribunal held that the reason provided for the inordinate delay of 1233 days did not constitute a "reasonable cause" and the condonation application lacked a supporting affidavit. Citing Apex Court judgments, it emphasized that a liberal approach to condonation of delay requires sufficient cause, which was not shown here. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed as barred by limitation.
Key Issues
Whether the inordinate delay of 1233 days in filing the appeal should be condoned, given the absence of the assessee as the sole reason and the lack of a supporting affidavit for the condonation application.
Sections Cited
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
IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL COCHIN BENCH, COCHIN Before Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Accountant Member & Shri Prakash Chand Yadav, Judicial Member ITA No.271/Coch/2025 : Asst.Year 2015-2016 Saida, Saida Trading Co. The Income Tax Officer Lakshmi Nada v. Ward 2 Kollam – 691 013. Kollam. PAN : EWYPS1905Q. (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant by : --- None --- Respondent by : Sri.Sundarasan S, CIT-DR Date of Pronouncement : 30.05.2025 Date of Hearing : 27.05.2025. O R D E R Per Prakash Chand Yadav, JM : The present appeal of the assessee is arising from the order of the National Faceless Appeal Centre / learned Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals [“CIT(A)” for short] dated 05.02.2025, having DIN & Order No.ITBA/NFAC/S/250/ 2024-25/1072940009(1) and relates to the assessment year 2015-2016.
At the outset, we observe that there is a delay of 1233 days in filing the present appeal. There is condonation application on the letterhead of one M/s.K.Venkatachalam Aiyer & Co., in which it is mentioned that the assessee, who had to sign the appeal documents, could not be contacted due to his absence from station. Except this, no other reason has
2 ITA No.271/Coch/2025. Saida, Saida Trading Co. been given by the assessee vis-à-vis condonation of delay of 1233 days. It is a case where there is inordinate delay without any cause much a less “reasonable cause”. In our view, the reason given in the condonation petition and that too on the letterhead of Chartered Accountants without any supporting affidavit cannot constitute reasonable cause, 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 he 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. “If negligence can be attributed to the appellant, then necessarily the delay which has not been condoned by the Tribunal and affirmed by the High Court deserves to be accepted. However, if no fault can be laid at the doors of the appellant and cause shown is sufficient then we are of the considered view that both the Tribunal and the High Court were in error in not adopting a liberal approach or justice-oriented approach to condone the delay”. In the present case the cause responsible for the delay would not fall
3 ITA No.271/Coch/2025. Saida, Saida Trading Co. under the ambit of “reasonable cause” hence, this appeal of the assessee is dismissed as barred by limitation.
In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed.
Order pronounced on this 30th day of May, 2025.
Sd/- Sd/- (Inturi Rama Rao) (Prakash Chand Yadav) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER Cochin; Dated : 30th May, 2025. Devadas G* Copy to : 1. The Appellant. 2. The Respondent. 3. The CIT, Cochin. 4. The DR, ITAT, Cochin. 5. Guard File. Asst.Registrar/ITAT, Cochin
