Case Law Details
Meenachil Taluk Cooperative Employees Cooperative Society Limited Vs CIT (Kerala High Court)
In a recent ruling, the Kerala High Court has condoned an 11-day delay in filing a tax appeal by the Meenachil Taluk Cooperative Employees Cooperative Society Limited against the Commissioner of Income Tax (CIT).
The petitioner, a cooperative society, is an assessee under the Income Tax Act, 1961. For the assessment year 2017-18, the petitioner filed its return of income, claiming a deduction under Section 80P of the Act. The Assessing Officer (AO) disallowed this deduction, leading to the issuance of an assessment order under Section 143(3). Discontent with the AO’s decision, the petitioner filed an appeal under Section 246A in Form No. 35 before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals). However, the appeal was filed 12 days late, attributed to the non-availability of the petitioner’s legal consultant. The CIT(A) dismissed the appeal, citing insufficient cause for the delay. The petitioner challenged this dismissal, arguing that the CIT(A) had arbitrarily and illegally refused to condone the delay. The petitioner contended that the CIT(A) had misapplied judicial precedents and ignored principles of natural justice. Upon hearing the arguments, the Kerala High Court referred to Section 249(2) and Section 249(3) of the Income Tax Act, which outline the time frame for filing an appeal and the conditions for condonation of delay. The court acknowledged that filing an appeal in tax matters often requires legal and technical expertise, which might be beyond the comprehension of a layperson. The court also referred to the landmark Supreme Court judgment in Collector, Land Acquisition, Anantnag v. Mst. Katiji, which laid down principles for condoning delays. These principles emphasize a rational and pragmatic approach to delay condonation, prioritizing substantial justice over technicalities. In this context, the court found the reason for the delay—non-availability of the legal consultant—sufficient. The court noted that rejecting the appeal on technical grounds would violate principles of natural justice. Moreover, the court observed that the CIT(A) had misapplied judicial precedents in dismissing the appeal. The Kerala High Court further cited a recent Supreme Court judgment, Pathapati Subba Reddy v. Special Deputy Collector (LA), which reiterated the principles for condoning delays. The judgment emphasized that while the law of limitation is based on public policy to end litigation, the courts have the discretion to condone delays to advance substantial justice.
FULL TEXT OF THE JUDGMENT/ORDER OF KERALA HIGH COURT
The petitioner, a Co-operative Society, is an assessee under the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’, for short). The petitioner filed its return of income for the assessment year 2017-18 and claimed deduction under Section 80P of the Act. The 2nd respondent, the Assessing Officer, completed the assessment and passed Ext. P1 order under Section 143(3) of the Act. The Assessing Officer disallowed the deduction claimed by the petitioner under Section 80P.
Please become a Premium member. If you are already a Premium member, login here to access the full content.
Author Bio
