Case Law Details
Neerikode Service Co-Operative Bank Ltd Vs ITO (Kerala High Court)
Introduction: The Neerikode Service Co-Operative Bank Ltd contested against the Income Tax Officer (ITO) before the Kerala High Court, questioning the ITAT’s decision on a delay issue. The case revolved around the condonation of delay concerning proceedings before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) [CIT(A)]. Herein lies an examination of the Kerala HC’s ruling and its implications on tax litigation.
Detailed Analysis:
1. Background of the Case: The petitioner approached the Kerala HC challenging the ITAT’s decision on ITA No. 954/Coch/2022 and Stay Application No. 34/2023. The central issue was the delay of 317 days in filing the appeal.
2. Petitioner’s Argument: The petitioner contended that the period of limitation for filing the appeal should be extended based on Supreme Court orders. They argued that considering this extension, the actual delay was only 156 days.
3. Department’s Response: The Department argued that even with the reduced delay, it was substantial. They cited reasons given by the Tribunal for not allowing the condonation of delay.
4. Court’s Consideration: The court examined whether delay or non-cooperation in proceedings before the CIT(A) was relevant to the condonation of delay before the appellate Tribunal.
5. Court’s Ruling: The Kerala HC ruled that the delay or non-cooperation before the CIT(A) is not germane to the ITAT’s consideration of delay condonation. They also acknowledged the Supreme Court’s orders, which extended the limitation period.
6. Implications: This judgment clarifies the factors relevant for delay condonation before the ITAT. It emphasizes the importance of considering extension orders by higher courts in calculating delays.
Conclusion: The Kerala High Court’s decision in the Neerikode Co-Op Bank vs. ITO case provides clarity on the factors pertinent to delay condonation before the ITAT. By ruling out the relevance of delays in proceedings before the CIT(A), the court ensures a fair consideration of appeals. This judgment underscores the significance of adhering to statutory timelines while also recognizing extensions granted by higher judicial authorities.
FULL TEXT OF THE JUDGMENT/ORDER OF KERALA HIGH COURT
The petitioner has approached this Court challenging the common order in ITA No.954/Coch/2022 and Stay Application No.34/2023 filed in that appeal, on the ground of delay. A reading of Ext.P6 order of the Tribunal will indicate that the Tribunal proceeded on the basis that the appeal was filed with a delay of 317 days.
2. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that considering the orders passed by the Supreme Court in Miscellaneous Application No.21 of 2022 in Miscellaneous Application No.665 of 2021 in Suo Motu Writ Petition (C) No.3 of 2020, the period of limitation for filing an appeal against Ext.P3 order would stand extended till 31.05.2022. It is submitted that if the delay is calculated from that date, the delay is only 156 days.
3. The learned Standing Counsel for the Department would submit that even if the delay is calculated to be only 156 days, there is substantial delay in filing the appeal. It is submitted that the Tribunal has given sufficient reason as to why the application for condonation of delay could not be allowed. It is submitted that in such circumstances, the challenge to Ext.P6 order is not sustainable.
4. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, in reply would submit that the factors considered by the Tribunal indicate that the Tribunal had considered the delay in the proceedings before the first appellate authority and the same may not be germane for consideration of an application for condonation of delay in filing an appeal against the first appellate order.
Having heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel appearing for the Department, I am of the view that there is considerable merit in the contention taken by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner. The delay or non co-operation of the petitioner in the proceedings before the first appellate authority is not germane to the consideration of an application for condonation of delay by the appellate Tribunal. That apart, it must be noticed that the petitioner had time till 31.05.2022 to file an appeal against Ext.P3 order considering the orders passed by the Supreme Court in Miscellaneous Application No.21 of 2022 in Miscellaneous Application No.665 of 2021 in Suo Motu Writ Petition (C) No.3 of 2020. If that is taken into consideration, the delay in filing the appeal is only 156 days and not 317 days as indicated in the order of the Tribunal. In that view of the matter, I am inclined to allow this writ petition by quashing Ext.P6 order. The delay of 156 days in filing ITA No.954/Coch/2022 will stand condoned. ITA No.954/Coch/2022 and S.A.No.34/2023 filed in the said appeal shall stand restored to the file of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal. The same shall be considered and disposed of on merits, in accordance with the law, after affording an opportunity of hearing to both sides.
Author Bio
