PUTHENVELIKKARA SERVICE CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD NO.3445,ERNAKULAM vs. ITO, WARD-3, ALUVA
In favour of the assessee: the assessee's appeal was allowed. From the AI summary of this appeal.
What did the Tribunal hold?
The Tribunal held that an assessee should not suffer due to the mistake of their counsel. The order of the CIT(A) was set aside, and the matter was restored to his file for a decision on merits.
What were the facts?
The assessee's appeal before the CIT(A) was dismissed in limine without condoning a delay of 240 days. The delay was attributed to the assessee's counsel.
What were the issues?
Whether the CIT(A) erred in dismissing the appeal without condoning the delay, especially when the delay was due to the counsel's mistake.
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Cases cited in this judgment(1)Show listHide 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.
- Mahaveer Prasad Jain v. CIT48 citing172 ITR 331 · 1988 · HC
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, COCHIN BENCH, COCHIN
Before: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri Prakash Chand Yadav
Heard together (2 matters)
Read from the judgment's own cause title. This page is filed under one of them.
O R D E R
Per Prakash Chand Yadav, JM :
The present appeal of the assessee along with stay application are arising from the order of the learned Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) dated 14.03.2024 and relates to assessment year 2017-2018.
The assessee has raised 9 grounds of appeal. However, the first appellate authority as the first appellate authority has dismissed the appeal in limine without condoning the delay.
The learned Departmental Representative could not seriously objected vis-à-vis restoration of the matter to the file
After considering the rival submissions, we observe that the learned CIT(A) has dismissed the appeal of the assessee without condoning the delay of 240 days before him. While dismissing the appeal, the learned CIT(A) could not appreciate that it is the Counsel of the assessee who was responsible for delay. It is settled position of law that an assessee would not suffer on account of mistake by his Counsel. A reference can be made to the judgment of Hon’ble Madhya Pradesh High Court in the case of N.P.Jain v. CIT reported in 172 ITR 331 (MP). Therefore, we set aside the order of the CIT(A) and restore the matter back to his file with a direction that he will decide the appeal on merits. Needless to say that the CIT(A) would grant sufficient opportunities to the assessee before taking any view.
Since we have already decided the appeal, the stay application of the assessee becomes infructuous and the same is dismissed.
In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes and the stay application is dismissed. Order pronounced on this 09th day of December, 2024.
Similar judgments
Other orders that rely on the same authority or decide the same section.
- Shree Hanuman Goshala Seva Samiti, Kota vs CIT(Exemption), JaipurJaipur1 Apr 2025Allowed
Also relies on Mahaveer Prasad Jain v. CIT
The Tribunal condoned the delay of 42 days in filing the appeal, citing sufficient cause due to the counsel's bonafide mistake. The Tribunal restored the matter back to the CIT(E) to provide the assessee with another opp...
- Choudhary Construction Co., Goregaon -W vs Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax…Mumbai13 Nov 2024Allowed
Also relies on Mahaveer Prasad Jain v. CIT
The ITAT held that the interest of justice would be met by deciding the matter on merits after providing a fair opportunity of hearing. The Tribunal found that the assessee did not have effective representation before th...
- Om Prakash Agrawal HUF, Jaipur vs ITO Ward 5(1), Jaiupr, JaipurJaipur9 Sept 2024Allowed
Also relies on Mahaveer Prasad Jain v. CIT
The Tribunal quashed the reassessment proceedings, holding that the Assessing Officer initiated the proceedings on wrong reasons and with incorrect material. The Tribunal found that the cash deposits were not as alleged ...
- Mayur Global Private Limited, Jaipur vs ITO Ward 1(3), JaipurJaipur20 Aug 2024Allowed
Also relies on Mahaveer Prasad Jain v. CIT
The Tribunal held that the income considered for disallowance under Section 14A was already taxed in the hands of the assessee. Therefore, there was no merit in making the disallowance under Section 14A.
- Suva Lal Paharia, Jaipur vs ITO Ward 6(3), JaipurJaipur24 Jun 2024Allowed
Also relies on Mahaveer Prasad Jain v. CIT
The Tribunal condoned the 18-day delay in filing the appeal, finding sufficient cause due to an email error. The Tribunal also noted that the reasons for reopening the assessment were factually incorrect and based on wro...
Latest GST High Court judgments
Search GST case law →- R.K.Service Station, Balasore vs. Commissioner CT And GST Odisha, CuttackOrissa · 31 Oct 2026
- Tankala Soumya vs. Assistant Commissioner Of State Tax, CT And GST, Rayagada Circle, RayagadaOrissa · 31 Oct 2026
- M/S Pooja, Town Hallroad, Cuttack vs. State Tax Officer, Cuttack-I West Circle,CuttackOrissa · 31 Oct 2026
- M/S Chicvogue Fashions Lip, Ganjam vs. State Tax Officer Bhubaneswar- Ii CircleOrissa · 31 Oct 2026
- M/S Priya, Townhall Road, Cuttack vs. Superintendent Cuttack- I Range, CuttackOrissa · 31 Oct 2026
