Kerala HC Upholds Dismissal of Appeal for Unconvincing Reason of Delay

Antony Sunny Vs CIT (Kerala High Court)

In a recent judgment, the Kerala High Court weighed in on the case of Antony Sunny versus the Commissioner of Income Tax (CIT). The dispute revolved around an appeal filed by the petitioner against an assessment order under Section 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, concerning the assessment year 2016-17. The petitioner contested the order passed by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), Thrissur, which dismissed the appeal due to its delayed filing.

Background: The petitioner, Antony Sunny, contested an assessment order dated 28.12.2018, which had added Rs. 60,00,000/- to his income from business. Despite the petitioner’s initial income declaration of Rs. 20,99,452/-, the assessment determined the gross income to be Rs. 80,99,452/-. Displeased with this decision, Antony Sunny filed an appeal on 21.05.2019, albeit 115 days after the stipulated deadline. The reason cited for the delay was a purported “website problem.”

Court’s Observations: The crux of the court’s evaluation rested on two pivotal aspects: the justification for the delayed filing and the observance of principles of natural justice. The petitioner attributed the late filing to technical issues with the tax department’s website. However, the court found this explanation lacking in credibility, particularly due to the absence of supporting evidence. Moreover, despite several notices issued to the petitioner between 28.12.2018 and 27.01.2019, the petitioner remained unresponsive, further undermining the claim of a website problem.

Judicial Decision: After careful consideration, the court ruled that there was no infringement of natural justice principles in the Commissioner’s decision. Additionally, it found no glaring infirmities or illegalities in the appellate order that warranted its intervention. Consequently, the court dismissed the writ petition, affirming the Commissioner’s decision to dismiss the appeal on grounds of delay.

Conclusion: The Kerala High Court’s judgment in Antony Sunny Vs CIT underscores the significance of adhering to statutory timelines and providing substantiated explanations for any deviations. While taxpayers have the right to appeal assessment orders, such appeals must be filed within the prescribed period and supported by credible justifications. This ruling serves as a reminder of the importance of procedural compliance and transparency in tax matters, ensuring fairness and efficiency in the adjudication process.

FULL TEXT OF THE JUDGMENT/ORDER OF KERALA HIGH COURT

1. The present writ petition has been filed impugning the order in Exhibit P-6 dated 10.11.2023 passed in statutory appeal by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), Thrissur against the assessment order dated 28.12.2018 in Exhibit P-1 under Section 143 (3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 in respect of the assessment year 2016-17. The Assessing Officers had added Rs. 60,00,000/- to the Income from business as returned Rs. 20,99,452/- and gross income has been determined to be Rs. 80,99,452/-.

2. The petitioner/assessee filed the appeal on 21.05.2019 against the assessment order dated 28.12.2018. The appeal was filed with delay of 115 days. The only reason for filing the appeal with delay was given is ‘website problem’. The assessment order and demand notices were duly served on the petitioner on 28.12.2018 itself. The Appellate Authority found the reasons for filing the appeal with huge delay of 115 days was not convincible. The petitioner failed to provide any evidence to the said reason (website problem). From 28.12.2018 to 27.01.2019. The petitioner was issued several notices affording opportunity of hearing. The notices issued on 03.11.2022, 15.06.2023, 07.09.2023, 12.09.2023, 05.10.2023 and 25.10.2023 have been mentioned in the impugned order, which remained unreplied and unanswered. Considering the conduct of the petitioner and the reason given for filing the appeal with delay i.e. ‘website problem’, the Commissioner of Appeal has dismissed the appeal on the ground of delay.

3. This Court does not find that there has been violation of the principles of natural justice as contended by the learned Counsel for the petitioner nor the orders suffers from any manifest infirmity or illegality which requires this Court to interfere with the appellate order passed by the 1^st respondent. Thus, this Court finds no merit in this writ petition and hence, the same is hereby dismissed.