Income Tax Appellate Tribunal Dismisses Appeal of Co-operative Society

Strategic Insights -

The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) Cochin Bench has dismissed the appeal filed by The Aroor Central Service Co-op. Bank Ltd. against the order of the National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi for Assessment Years (AY) 2017-18 and 2021-22. The ITAT held that the delay in filing the appeal was not condoned and relied on various court decisions to support their decision.

The Tribunal found that the co-operative society failed to provide sufficient cause for the delay in filing the appeal, which was 361 days late. The society claimed that the delay was due to the Tax Consultant not communicating the order passed by the CIT(A) to them, which they attributed to the email address given in Form 35 belonging to the Tax Consultant. However, the ITAT depreciated this practice and held that the society could not shift the negligence to the shoulders of the counsel.

The ITAT relied on various court decisions, including the Delhi High Court's ruling in Rahul Mavai v. Union of India & Ors (W.P.(C) 17440/2024) dated 18.12.2024, which held that delaying condonation of delay is not proper unless a reasonable or satisfactory explanation is given. The Tribunal also relied on the Supreme Court's decision in P.K. Ramachandran vs State of Kerala, IV(1997) CLT 95 (SC), which stated that the law of limitation may harshly affect a particular party but it has to be applied with all its rigour when the statute so prescribes.

As a result, the ITAT dismissed the appeals and stay applications filed by the co-operative society.

Key Takeaways:

  • The ITAT dismissed the appeal filed by The Aroor Central Service Co-op. Bank Ltd. against NFAC, Delhi for Assessment Years 2017-18 and 2021-22.
  • The Tribunal held that the delay in filing the appeal was not condoned and relied on various court decisions to support their decision.
  • The co-operative society failed to provide sufficient cause for the delay in filing the appeal, which was 361 days late.
  • The society claimed that the delay was due to the Tax Consultant not communicating the order passed by the CIT(A) to them, but the ITAT depreciated this practice and held that the society could not shift the negligence to the shoulders of the counsel.
  • The ITAT relied on the Delhi High Court's ruling in Rahul Mavai v. Union of India & Ors (W.P.(C) 17440/2024) dated 18.12.2024 and the Supreme Court's decision in P.K. Ramachandran vs State of Kerala, IV(1997) CLT 95 (SC) to support their decision.
  • The Tribunal also relied on the Apex Court's decision in Pundlilk Jalam Patil (dead) by LRs vs Executive Engineer Jalgaon Medium Project, (2008) 17 SCC 448, which stated that the statutes of limitation are founded on public policy and the courts have expressed at least three different reasons supporting the existence of statutes of limitation.

Statistics:

  • 361 days was the delay in filing the appeal.
  • The co-operative society claimed that the email address given in Form 35 belonged to the Tax Consultant and that they were not informed about the order passed by the CIT(A).
  • 17 SCC 448 is the Apex Court's decision number mentioned in the Tribunal's order.
  • There are 351 (1) individuals working in The Aroor Central Service Co-op. Bank Ltd. as per the information mentioned in the order.

Sources:

  • ITA Nos. 371 & 372/Coch/2025 & SA Nos. 51 & 52/Coch/2024
  • ITA 371 & 372/Coch/2025/SA 51 & 52/C/2024 The Aroor Central Service Co-op. Bank Ltd.
  • Rahul Mavai v. Union of India & Ors (W.P.(C) 17440/2024) dated 18.12.2024
  • P.K. Ramachandran vs State of Kerala, IV(1997) CLT 95 (SC)
  • Pundlilk Jalam Patil (dead) by LRs vs Executive Engineer Jalgaon Medium Project, (2008) 17 SCC 448