PATTASHERYVALAPPIL MOHAMMED RIYAS,KODINHI,TIRUTHI MALAPURAM vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, TIRUR

PDF

ITA 924/COCH/2024Status: DisposedITAT Cochin27 March 2025AY 2017-18Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao (Accountant Member), Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail (Judicial Member)4 pages

AI SummaryDismissed

Facts

The assessee filed an appeal before the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) against a CIT(A) order for AY 2017-18. While the ITAT condoned a 64-day delay in filing the present appeal, the core issue revolved around an inordinate delay of 710 days in filing the original appeal before the CIT(A). The assessee attributed this delay to illness and relied on the Supreme Court's COVID-19 related limitation extension order.

Held

The ITAT held that the Supreme Court's order extending limitation due to COVID-19 was not applicable as the original limitation period for the CIT(A) appeal expired on 27/01/2020, prior to the specified COVID-19 period (15/03/2020 to 28/02/2022). Furthermore, the assessee failed to provide supporting evidence for the claimed illness. Therefore, the ITAT upheld the CIT(A)'s decision to dismiss the assessee's appeal due to the 710-day delay, and consequently, the assessee's appeal before the ITAT was dismissed.

Key Issues

Whether the inordinate delay of 710 days in filing the appeal before the CIT(A) should be condoned, considering the applicability of the Supreme Court's COVID-19 limitation extension and the lack of evidence for the assessee's claimed illness.

Sections Cited

250

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, COCHIN BENCH, COCHIN

Before: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

Hearing: 25.03.2025

:Asst.Year 2017-2018 Sri.Pattasheryvalappil The Income Tax Officer Mohammed Riyas, P.O.Kodinhi v. Tirur. Tiruthi, Malappuram – 676 309. PAN : AYHPM5822D. (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant by : Sri. Shaji Paulose, CA Respondent by : Smt.Leena Lal, Sr.AR Date of Date of Hearing :25.03.2025 Pronouncement : 27.03.2025 O R D E R

Per Sandeep Singh Karhail, JM :

The assessee has filed the present appeal against the impugned order dated 20/06/2024, passed under section 250 of the Income Tax Act (“the Act”) by the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi, [“learned CIT(A)”], for the assessment year 2017-18.

The present appeal is delayed by 64 days. Along with the appeal, the assessee has filed an application seeking condonation of delay, which is duly supported by an affidavit of the assessee. In the affidavit, the assessee submitted that the appellate order was served on a different email ID, which is not used by him regularly, and when he came to know about the order on a later date, the necessary steps . Sri.Pattasheryvalappil Mohammed Riyas. were taken for filing the present appeal. Having considered the submissions of the assessee, we are of the considered view that there was sufficient cause for not filing the appeal by the assessee within the limitation period. Accordingly, we condone the delay in filing the present appeal by the assessee.

Upon perusal of the impugned order passed by the learned CIT(A), we find that the assessee did not comply with various notices issued by the learned CIT(A) during the appellate proceedings and repeatedly sought adjournment. We further find that the assessee’s appeal before the learned CIT(A) was also filed after a delay of 710 days. We find that before the learned CIT(A) the assessee submitted that the assessment order was received on 28/12/2019,and the time limit of filing the appeal before the learned CIT(A) was till 27/01/2020. However, the assessee fell ill from 20/01/2020 till 22/03/2022. It is the plea of the assessee that since the restrictions due to Covid pandemic started in the last week of March 2020, the assessee could not file the appeal within the prescribed limitation period. We find that before the learned CIT(A), the assessee also placed reliance upon the order passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court extending the period of limitation. At the outset, we are of the considered view that the Hon’ble Supreme Court’s order dated 10/01/2022, in M.A. no.21 of 2022, in M.A. no.665 of 2021, in Suo–Motu Writ Petition (Civil) no.3 of 2020extending the period of limitation due to Covid pandemic is only applicable where the period of limitation falls between 15/03/2020 and . Sri.Pattasheryvalappil Mohammed Riyas. 28/02/2022. However, in the present case, admittedly,the period of limitation for filing the appeal before the learned CIT(A) was available till 27/01/2020. Therefore, we do not find any merits in the reliance placed by the assessee on the aforesaid order of the Hon’ble Supreme Court. Apart from the aforesaid submissions, it is evident from the perusal of the impugned order that no material/evidence was filed by the assessee to substantiate its plea that from 20/01/2020 till 22/03/2020, he was not well. Therefore, we are of the considered view that the plea of the assessee seeking condonation of delay of 710 days in filing the appeal before the learned CIT(A) is completely bereft of any merits due to lack of supporting evidence. Accordingly, we do not find any infirmity in the impugned order passed by the learned CIT(A)in dismissing the assessee’s appeal due to an inordinate delay of 710 days in filing the same. Hence, the impugned order passed by the learned CIT(A) is upheld, and the grounds raised by the assessee are dismissed.