CHAVAKKAD P C A R D BANK LTD,GURUVAYOOR vs. ITO, WARD-1 & TPS, GURUVAYOOR

PDF · subscribers
ITA 28/COCH/2024Status: DisposedITAT Cochin06 November 2024AY 2017-2018Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara (Judicial Member), Shri Amarjit Singh (Accountant Member)2 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal found that the CIT(A)/NFAC erred in not condoning the delay, citing Supreme Court precedent that technicalities should not impede substantial justice. The case was remanded to the CIT(A)/NFAC to decide the penalty appeal on its merits.

What were the facts?

The assessee's appeal before the CIT(A)/NFAC was dismissed due to a delay of 614 days. The assessee contended that the delay was due to circumstances beyond their control, including the COVID-19 pandemic.

What were the issues?

Whether the delay in filing the appeal before the CIT(A)/NFAC was sufficiently explained and should be condoned. The merits of the penalty appeal itself were not decided.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 270A

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Cases cited in this judgment(1)Show 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.

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, COCHIN BENCH, COCHIN

Before: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Amarjit Singh

Hearing: 16.08.2024Pronounced: 06.11.2024

Appellant by : Sri.Cheeran Varghese, CA Respondent by : Dr.S.Pandian, CIT-DR Date of Pronouncement : 06.11.2024 Date of Hearing : 16.08.2024 O R D E R Per Bench : This assessee’s appeal in for assessment year 2017-2018 arises out of the order of the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) / NFAC vide DIN & Order No.ITBA/NFAC/S/250/ 2023-24/1058002842(1) dated 16.11.2023 in proceedings u/s.270A of the Income-tax Act, 1961; in short “the Act” hereinafter.

2.

Heard both the parties. Case file perused.

3.

It emerges at the outset that the learned CIT(A)/NFAC has refused to condone assessee’s delay of 614 days as not supported by any reasonable cause. Learned counsel, on the other hand, has invited our attention to assessee condonation averments duly considered in pages 3 and 4 of the lower appellate discussion which indeed prove that it could institute the lower appeal on account of circumstances beyond control.

. Chavakkad PCARD Bank Limited. Hon’ble apex court’s landmark decision in the case of Collector Land Acquisition v. Mst.Katiji & Ors. (1987) 167 ITR 471 (SC) has settled the issue long back that all such technical aspects must make way for the cause of substantial justice. Coupled with this, we find that the learned CIT(A)- NFAC has also included Covid-2019 pandemic outbreak period as well in limitation.

4.

Faced with this situation and without observing anything on the merits of the case, we consider it appropriate in the larger interest of justice to remit the issue back to the file of the ld.CIT(A)/NFAC to decide the penalty appeal on merits, subject to rider that the taxpayer itself shall plead and prove its case within three effective opportunities only; at its own risk and responsibility in consequential proceedings. Ordered accordingly.

More judgments on Section 270A

All 4,156 judgments and leading authorities on Section 270A →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →