THEKKUMBHAGAM SERVICE CO-OP BANK LTD,IDUKKI vs. THE ITO WARD 1, THODUPUZHA
What did the Tribunal hold?
The ITAT condoned the delay in filing the appeal before the CIT(A) and directed the CIT(A) to admit the appeal and decide it on merits. The ITAT also condoned the delay in filing its own appeal.
What were the facts?
The assessee's appeal to the CIT(A) was dismissed for being delayed by 7 days. The assessee's subsequent appeal to the ITAT was also delayed by 23 days. The ITAT considered the reasons for both delays.
What were the issues?
Whether the delays in filing the appeals before the CIT(A) and the ITAT were sufficiently explained to warrant condonation. Whether the CIT(A) erred in dismissing the appeal on grounds of delay without a liberal interpretation of 'sufficient cause'.
Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?
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.
- Collector, Land Acquisition v. Mst. Katiji3,926 citing167 ITR 471 · 1987 · SC
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, COCHIN BENCH, COCHIN
Before: Shri Sanjay Arora, AM & Shri Manomohan Das, JM
O R D E R
Per Sanjay Arora, AM:
The instant Appeal by the Assessee agitates the Order dated 08.12.2022 by the Commissioner of Income-Tax (Appeals), NFAC, Delhi, dismissing the assessee’s appeal contesting it’s assessment under section 147 read with section 143(3) of the Income-Tax Act, 1961 (the Act) dated 19.12.2016 for assessment year 2011-2012.
The appeal, filed on 01.03.2023, is delayed a period of 23 days. The reasons for the same, as averred in the sworn affidavit dated 27.02.2023 by Sri.Baiju V.T., Secretary, who is also the Principal Officer verifying the appeal, on record,is that the impugned order, received by the assessee-bank per email, was not noticed by the staff, and it came to know of it only on a phone call from the Office of the Assessing Officer (AO). The same, strictly speaking, cannot per se be regarded as a sufficient cause. We yet regard it as a fit case for condonation of delay in the conspectus of the case. The orders received on email, are generally missed by the bank staff where the (AY 2011-2012) Thekkumbhagam SCB Ltd. v. ITO working is not wholly computerized, as we generally find to be the case. Further it, on notice, acted with alacrity. We accordingly admit the appeal. (also see para 3)
The impugned order is an in limine dismissal of the assessee’s appeal, being, again, delayed by 7 days. The same stands explained as due to unavailability of the Counsel, Sri.V.V.Thomas, being out of station for a couple of days, with further delay being caused due to public holiday on January 26, 2017 and the server down of the Department being down for upgradation till January 28, 2017 morning 5 AM. The Hon’ble Apex Court in Collector, Land Acquisition v. Mst. Katiji[1987] 167 ITR 471 (SC) explained that the expression “sufficient cause” employed by the Legislature (s. 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963) is adequately elastic to enable the courts to apply the law in a meaningful manner which sub-serves the ends of justice – that being the life-purpose of the existence of the institution of courts. The doctrine is to be applied in a rational, common sense and pragmatic manner. A justifiably liberal approach is to be adopted, also drawing distinction between marginal and inordinate large delays, eschewing prejudice being caused to either side. The first appellate authority ought to have, we think, taken a more liberal view in the matter. We, accordingly, setting aside the impugned order, restore the proceedings to the file of the ld.CIT(A), who shall admit the assessee’s appeal and adjudicate it on merits after hearing the parties thereon. We decide accordingly.
In the result, the assessee’s appeal is allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced on October11, 2023 under Rule 34 of The Income Tax (Appellate Tribunal) Rules, 1963 Sd/- Sd/- (Manomohan Das) (Sanjay Arora) Judicial Member Accountant Member Cochin; Dated: October11, 2023 Devadas G*
(AY 2011-2012) Thekkumbhagam SCB Ltd. v. ITO
More judgments on Section 147
- ACIT Central Bilaspur, Bilaspur vs Arun Kumar Agrawal, SaktiITSSA 26/RPR/2025[2018-19]Status: Disposed21 Oct 2026AY 2018-19
- Vinod Agrawal, Kawardha vs Assisstant Commissioner of Income Tax…ITA 666/RPR/2026[2019-20]Status: Heard21 Oct 2026AY 2019-20
- Sar Business Tradelink Private Limited… vs Income Tax Officer, Ward - 1(2), RaipurITA 599/RPR/2026[2014-15]Status: Heard21 Oct 2026AY 2014-15
- Tarunaben Maganlal Bhut, Navagam vs ITO Ward 2(2)(1), RajkotITA 673/RJT/2026[2024-25]Status: Disposed21 Oct 2026AY 2024-25
- Neo Incorporation, Rajkot vs DCIT Circle- 1(2), RajkotITA 471/RJT/2026[2012-2013]Status: Disposed21 Oct 2026AY 2012-2013
Recent GST High Court judgments
Search GST case law →- Saraswati Phukan vs. The Union Of INDIA And 4 OrsGauhati · 14 Oct 2026
- Sanjay Maheshwari vs. Union Of INDIA & Ors.Delhi · 14 Oct 2026
- Sanjay Maheshwari vs. Union Of INDIA & Ors.Delhi · 14 Oct 2026
- Iyyanan Eswaran vs. The Appellate Deputy Commissioner (St) (GST)Madras · 14 Oct 2026
- M/S Dc Security Services vs. Commissioner Of Central Goods And Services TaxUttarakhand · 14 Oct 2026