Filing An Appeal In Tax Matters May Require Legal And Technical Assistance: Kerala HC Allows Condonation Of Delay
The Kerala High Court while allowing condonation of delay in a case, remarked that filing an appeal in tax matters may require legal and technical assistance.
The Court was dealing with a writ petition preferred by a Cooperative Society against the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals).
A Single Bench of Justice Murali Purushothaman observed, “Filing an appeal in tax matters may require legal and technical assistance. The taxation laws and the procedures involved in filing an appeal may be beyond comprehension for a layman assessee. Therefore, in my view, the reason advanced by the petitioner for condoning the delay in filing the appeal is sufficient, and the delay should have been condoned by the 1st respondent.”
The Bench said that the rejection of appeal on technical grounds amounts to violation of principles of natural justice.
Advocate Mini G. appeared on behalf of the petitioner while Standing Counsel Cyriac Tom appeared on behalf of the respondents.
Facts of the Case -
The petitioner, a cooperative society was an assessee under the Income Tax Act, 1961 (ITA) and it filed its return of income for the assessment year 2017-18 and claimed deduction under Section 80P of ITA. The respondent, the Assessing Officer (AO) completed the assessment and passed an order under Section 143(3) of ITA. It disallowed the deduction claimed by the petitioner. The petitioner preferred appeal under Section 246A before the CIT (Appeals).
The petitioner stated that there was a delay of 12 days in filing the appeal. The CIT (Appeals) refused to condone the delay and dismissed the appeal in limine stating that the application did not explain the reasons, much less demonstrate sufficient cause for condoning the delay, whereas it is settled position of law that the assessee is duty bound to explain each day's delay after the last date of limitation. Being aggrieved, the petitioner approached the High Court.
The High Court in the above context noted, “Tested on the touchstones of the above principles, I find that there is sufficient cause for not presenting Ext. P2 appeal within the time provided under Section 249 (2) of the Act. Ext. P3 order is therefore set aside. The delay of 11 days has to be condoned and the appeal has to be admitted and adjudicated on merits.”
The Court directed the CIT (Appeals) i.e., the respondent to consider the appeal on merits within two months after affording an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner.
Accordingly, the Court disposed of the writ petition.
Cause Title- The Meenachil Taluk Cooperative Employees Cooperative Society Limited v. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) & Anr. (Neutral Citation: 2024:KER:46477)
Appearance:
Petitioner: Advocates G. Mini, A. Kumar, P.J. Anilkumar, P.S. Sree Prasad, and Balasubramaniam R.
Respondents: Sr. SC Jose Joseph and GP Cyriac Tom.
