Back
MURALI PURUSHOTHAMAN
Meenachil Taluk Cooperative Employees Cooperative Society Limited – Appellant
Versus
Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
The petitioner, a Co-operative Society, is an assessee under the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act', for short). The petitioner filed its return of income for the assessment year 2017-18 and claimed deduction under Section 80P of the Act. The 2nd respondent, the Assessing Officer, completed the assessment and passed Ext. P1 order under Section 143(3) of the Act. The Assessing Officer disallowed the deduction claimed by the petitioner under Section 80P.
2. Against Ext. P1, the petitioner preferred Ext. P2 appeal under Section 246A of the Act in Form No. 35 before the 1st respondent, the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals). In Ext. P2, the petitioner has stated that there is delay of 12 days in filing the appeal and the ground for condonation of delay is shown as under;
3. The 1st respondent, by Ext. P3 order, refused to condone the delay and dismissed the appeal in limine stating that the application does not explain the reasons, much less demonstrate sufficient cause for condoning the delay, whereas it is settled position of la
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the rejection of an appeal on technical grounds without considering the substantial justice and violation of principles of natural justice amo....
Inordinate delay in tax appeals not condoned without sufficient cause and due diligence; merits irrelevant.
The main legal point established in the judgment is the emphasis on 'sufficient cause' as indicated in Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963, and the need for a justice-oriented approach in condoning....
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
