VANIYA KANDIYIL KUNHABDULLA,KANNUR vs. THE ITO WARD 2, KANNUR

PDF · subscribers
ITA 180/COCH/2023Status: DisposedITAT Cochin19 February 2025AY 2010-11Bench: the ld.CIT(A).3 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal held that the ld.CIT(A) ought to have condoned the delay given the circumstances of the assessee's poor health. The ITAT restored the matter to the file of the ld.CIT(A) for fresh adjudication on merits, ensuring the assessee is granted a meaningful opportunity of being heard.

What were the facts?

The assessee filed appeals against the order of the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) for AY 2009-10 and 2010-11. The ld.CIT(A) dismissed these appeals due to a delay of 391 days in filing, despite the assessee's claim of poor health due to cancer.

What were the issues?

Whether the ld.CIT(A) was justified in dismissing the assessee's appeals solely on the ground of a 391-day delay without condoning the delay and adjudicating the case on its merits, particularly when the delay was attributed to the assessee's poor health.

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: 19.02.2025

Heard together (2 matters)

ITA No.179/Coch/2023
ITA No.180/Coch/2023

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

Asst.Year 2010-2011 Sri.Vaniya Kandiyil Kunhabdulla The Income Tax Officer C/o.Avinash, Kannothumchal Ward-2 v. Road, P.O.Chovva Kannur. Kannur – 670 692. PAN : DHFPK8879E. (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant by:Sri.R.Krishnan, CA Respondent by: Smt.Leena Lal, Sr.AR Date of Pronouncement : 19.02.2025 Date of Hearing : 20.01.2025. O R D E R Per Prakash Chand Yadav, JM : Both these appeals filed by the assessee are arising from the order of the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) dated 6th January, 2023 andit relates to assessment years2009-2010 and 2010-2011, having DIN & Order No.ITBA/NFAC/S/250/2022-23/1048504813(1)and No.1048495105(1), respectively.

2.

At the outset, the learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the assessee pointed out that the ld.CIT(A) has dismissed the appeal of the assessee on the ground that the assessee failed to explain the delay of 391 days happened before the ld.CIT(A).

3.

The learned Departmental Representative relied upon the orders of the authorities below.

4.

We have heard the rival submissions and perused the material available on record. We observe that in para 2.5 at page 5 of the ld.CIT(A), there is a mention of poor health of the assessee, citing suffering from Cancer and therefore, there was a delay of 391 days before the ld.CIT(A). Considering the totality of the facts and circumstances of the case, we are of the firm view that the ld.CIT(A) ought to have condoned the delay and adjudicated the matter on merits. Hence, in the interest of justice, we restore this matter to the file of the ld.CIT(A) for fresh adjudication in accordance with law. Needless to say, the ld.CIT(A) would grant meaningful opportunity of being heard to the assessee before passing any order.

5.

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes.

Order pronounced on this 19th day of February, 2025.

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →