KAYAKKODI SERVICE CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD NO F 1481,KAYAKKODI vs. ITO, WARD-2(2), KOZHIKODE
What did the Tribunal hold?
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) did not deal with the delay condonation application judiciously. Therefore, the Tribunal directed the CIT(A) to decide the matter afresh after condoning the delay.
What were the facts?
The assessee, a co-operative society, filed its return of income which was processed with adjustments by the CPC. The assessee filed an appeal before the CIT(A) with a delay of 383 days, which was dismissed in limine without condoning the delay.
What were the issues?
Whether the CIT(A) erred in dismissing the appeal without judiciously considering the application for condonation of delay.
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
O R D E R
Per Prakash Chand Yadav, JM :
The present appeal of the assessee is arising from the order of the learned Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) dated 31stJanuary, 2024 and relates to the assessment year 2020-2021.
The brief facts of the case are that the assessee is a co- operative society registered under the Kerala State Co- operative Societies Act. It has filed its return of income on 15th January, 2021. The same was processed u/s.143(1) of the Act after making certain adjustments.
Aggrieved with the adjustments made by the CPC, Bangalore, the assessee filed appeal before the ld.CIT(A)
. Kayakkodi SCB Limited belatedly. There was a delay of 383 days in filing the appeal before the ld.CIT(A). The appeal of the assessee is dismissed by the ld.CIT(A) in limine without condoning the delay.
Now the assessee has come up in appeal before us. Today when the matter has been called up on one appear from the side of assessee despite service of notice. Therefore we proceeds to the decide case on the basis of material available on record.
The learned Departmental Representative appearing on behalf of the Revenue pointed out that there is a delay of 383 days, which forms in the category of inordinate delay.
We observe that the ld.CIT(A) has not dealt with the application for delay in a judicious manner, which in our view is not tenable in law. It is incumbent upon the ld.CIT(A) to deal with all the contentions and then pass a speaking order thereon before taking any view. However, in the present case, the ld.CIT(A) has not dealt with the application for condonation of delay in a judicious manner. Further perusal of the records would show that there was reasonable was for not appearing before the CIT(A). Therefore, in the interest of justice, we direct the ld.CIT(A) to decide the matter afresh after condoning the delay of 383 days happened before the ld.CIT(A).
In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes.
Order pronounced on this 29th day of November, 2024.
Recent GST High Court judgments
Search GST case law →- Imtiyaz Shaikh Z Chorlekar vs. Salman ShaikhBombay · 21 Oct 2026
- S. Nithyananda vs. State Of KarnatakaKarnataka · 17 Oct 2026
- Ritik vs. State Of M.P.Madhya Pradesh · 16 Oct 2026
- Venkadeswara Grill Works vs. The Joint Commissioner (St)Madras · 16 Oct 2026
- Mufti Clothing And Co vs. The Assistant Commissioner (St)Madras · 16 Oct 2026