Case Law Details
Cool Mind Technologies Private Limited Vs ACIT (Kerala High Court)
Introduction: In a significant ruling, the Kerala High Court has restored the income tax appeal of Cool Mind Technologies Private Limited, which was previously dismissed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) for non-prosecution. This judgment underscores the judicial emphasis on considering appeals on their merits, regardless of procedural lapses. The case, arising from the denial of tax deductions claimed under Sections 10B and 10A of the Income Tax Act, highlights critical aspects of appellate procedures and taxpayer rights.
Background of the Case: Cool Mind Technologies, engaged in software development and IT-enabled services, had claimed a tax deduction under Section 10B as a 100% Export Oriented Unit (EOU) for the assessment years 2007-08 and 2008-09. While the deduction was denied initially, an alternate claim under Section 10A was allowed for the assessment year 2008-09 but rejected for 2007-08. The company’s subsequent appeal to the ITAT for the 2007-08 assessment year was dismissed for non-prosecution.
Procedural Lapses and Legal Contentions: The appellant contended that they were neither notified of the hearing nor the dismissal order by the ITAT. Upon discovering the dismissal, the appellant’s application for restoration was rejected as it was filed beyond the statutory period. The appellant then sought judicial intervention through a writ petition, arguing that the ITAT was obliged to adjudicate the appeal on its merits as per Section 254 of the Income Tax Act and Rule 24 of the Income Tax (Appellate Tribunal) Rules, 1963.
Kerala High Court’s Ruling: The Kerala High Court, referencing a similar case (Uzhuva Service Co-operative Bank Ltd. v. Income Tax Officer), reiterated that the ITAT cannot dismiss an appeal solely for non-prosecution. The court emphasized that the ITAT must evaluate appeals based on their merits, irrespective of procedural defaults by the appellant. The bench found that dismissing the appeal without a substantive hearing was legally untenable and contrary to statutory obligations. Consequently, the High Court set aside the orders of the ITAT and the learned Single Judge, directing the ITAT to reinstate the appeal and adjudicate it within six months, ensuring the appellant receives a fair hearing.
Conclusion: The Kerala High Court’s decision in the case of Cool Mind Technologies Private Limited vs. ACIT reaffirms the principle that procedural lapses should not obstruct the substantive rights of taxpayers. The ruling underscores the judiciary’s role in safeguarding the integrity of appellate procedures and ensuring that all appeals are considered on their merits.
FULL TEXT OF THE JUDGMENT/ORDER OF KERALA HIGH COURT
This appeal is filed against the judgment dated 08.02.2024 of a learned Single Judge in W.P(C)No.9100 of 2020.
2. The brief facts necessary for a disposal of the appeal are as follows:
The appellant is engaged in Software Development and Export of IT enabled services for which it had claimed deduction under Section 10B as a 100% EOU. For the assessment years 2007-08 and 2008-09, the claim for deduction was denied. In the first appeal, the appellant raised an alternate contention for deduction under Section 10A of the IT Act, in the event, the claim under Section 10B was not allowed. This alternate ground was allowed by the First Appellate Authority for the assessment year 2008-09, but was rejected by the same authority for the assessment year 2007- 08.
3. Against the rejection by the First Appellate Authority, the appellant preferred an appeal before the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal. The said appeal however came to be dismissed for non prosecution. It is the case of the appellant that he received neither the notice of hearing before the Appellate Tribunal nor the dismissal order of the Appellate When he eventually got a copy of the said dismissal order of the Appellate Tribunal, he preferred an application for restoration of the appeal, but the said application was also dismissed as belated.
4. It is impugning the said dismissal orders of the Appellate Tribunal, dismissing the appeal and the miscellaneous application, that the appellant approached the writ court through the writ petition aforementioned.
5. The learned Single Judge who considered the matter, although noticed the provisions of Section 254 of the Income Tax Act, read with Rule 24 of the Income Tax (Appellate Tribunal) Rules, 1963, and found that the Appellate Tribunal was statutorily obliged to consider the appeal on merits, and did not have the power to dismiss the appeals filed before it for non prosecution, nevertheless proceeded to dismiss the writ petition on the ground that the miscellaneous application preferred by the appellant for restoration of the appeal, was itself belated.
6. We have heard Sri. Joseph Markos, the learned Senior Counsel assisted by Sri. Abraham Joseph Markos for the appellant and Sri. Jose Joseph, the learned Standing Counsel for the Income Tax Department.
7. On a consideration of the rival submissions, we find that another Division Bench of this Court, in the decision reported in Uzhuva Service Co-operative Bank Ltd. v. Income Tax Officer and others [2020 (5) KHC 615] has, in an almost identical situation, found that the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal acting under Section 254 of the IT Act, 1961, cannot dismiss an appeal preferred by an assessee for non-prosecution. The court found that in terms of the provisions of Section 254 of the IT Act, the Appellate Tribunal was statutorily obliged to consider all appeals on merits and the dismissal for non-prosecution, without considering the merits of the appeal, was not legally sustainable. We further notice that in the said case also, the assessee had filed an application for the restoration of the appeal beyond the statutory period prescribed under the Income Tax (Appellate Tribunal) Rules. The situation, therefore, was not different from what arises in the instant case.
8. Thus, taking note of the said precedent of this Court and finding it to be in confirmity with the statutory provisions under the IT Act and Rules, we allow this writ appeal by setting aside the impugned judgment of the learned Single Judge, as also Ext.P4 and P6 orders of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal that were impugned in the writ petition, and direct the Appellate Tribunal to restore the appeal (ITA 375/Coch/2016) on its file and pass orders on merits after hearing the appellant, within an outer time limit of six months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment.
The writ appeal is disposed as above.
Author Bio
