Extension of time for document submission must adhere to statutory requirements, with no plea of limitation permitted due to extension.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN &

THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE M.B. SNEHALATHA FRIDAY, THE 20^TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2026 / 1ST PHALGUNA, 1947 WA NO. 453 OF 2026 JUDGMENT DATED 02.02.2026 ARISING FROM: WP(C) NO.3148 OF 2026 APPELLANT/PETITIONER:

HAMEED SUBBAN THOTTY, AGED 56 YEARS S/O. AYSHA, RESIDING AT AYSHA MANZIL, PATET ROAD, P.O.ALAMPADY, KASARAGOD, PIN – 671123.

BY ADVS.

SRI.P.B.SUBRAMANYAN SRI.SABU GEORGE SRI.MANU VYASAN PETER SMT.CHITRA JOHNSON RESPONDEN T S /RESPONDEN T S :

1 THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS)

NATIONAL FACELESS APPEAL CENTRE, INCOME TAX DEPARTMENT, MINISTRY OF FINANCE, 2ND FLOOR, E-RAMP, JAWAHARLAL NEHRU STADIUM, NEW DELHI, PIN - 110003

2 ASSESSMENT UNIT NATIONAL FACELESS ASSESSMENT CENTRE, INCOME TAX DEPARTMENT, MINISTRY OF FINANCE, 2ND FLOOR, E-RAMP, JAWAHARLAL NEHRU STADIUM, NEW DELHI, PIN - 110003 3 INCOME TAX OFFICER INCOME TAX DEPARTMENT, WARD - I AND TPS, AAYAKAR BHAVAN, VIDYANAGAR, KASARAGOD, PIN – 671123.

BY ADV SRI.G.KEERTHIVAS THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON

20.02.2026, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

JUDGMENT Devan Ramachandran, J.

Sri.P.B.Subramanyan – learned counsel for the appellant, after arguing this matter at length on merits; made an alternative request that, if this Court is not inclined to accept his contentions, then the time frame for uploading the documents online - as required under Section 144B (5) of the Income Tax Act (‘Act’ for short) be extended until 31.03.2026.

2. Sri.G.Keerthivas – learned Standing Counsel for the respondents, opposed this Appeal, both on merits and also on the alternative plea; but conceded that, if this Court is only inclined to grant time as sought for by the appellant, then it may be confined to two or three weeks and on the specific condition that the appellant will not be entitled to impel the plea of limitation against his clients, should further action be warranted in future.

3. We have considered the contentions of the rival parties and notice that the learned Single Judge has, in fact, evaluated them incisively. Going by the Statutory Scheme, particularly the provisions of Section 144B (5) of the ‘Act’, documents can only be produced through the online mode; and therefore, we cannot offer any exception to the appellant, whatever be the reason that they present.

4. In fact, the cause projected by the appellant, in seeking permission to produce the documents through physical mode, is that the same is ‘voluminous’.

5. We are afraid that this cannot appeal to us at all because, when the applicable Statute provides for a particular course, it has to be done in the same manner, and no other.

6. That said, we are certainly of the view that the appellant must be offered some more time to upload the documents, especially when he says that they are ‘voluminous’.

In such circumstances, we allow this Appeal only in part; extending the time frame for the appellant to upload his documents, as per Section 144B (5) of the ‘Act’, until

31.03.2026.

Though it has been so limpidly ordered by the learned Single Judge, we reiteratingly clarify that the appellant cannot invoke a plea of limitation qua the period of extension granted by both the learned Single Judge and this Bench, should any action be initiated against him in future by the respondents.

We further clarify that this order is being granted in indulgence to the appellant and not in recognition of any right.

Sd/-

DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN JUDGE Sd/-

M.B.SNEHALATHA