Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN, BASANT BALAJI, JJ
CHATHAMANGALAM SERVICE CO-OP.. BANK LTD – Appellant
Versus
THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. the appellants failed to properly explain the delay in filing an appeal. (Para 1 , 2) |
| 2. the respondent contended that the appellants did not adequately justify the delay. (Para 3) |
| 3. the court allowed the appeal, maintaining the importance of providing detailed justification for delays. (Para 4 , 5 , 6) |
JUDGMENT Devan Ramachandran, J.
Through the impugned order of the learned Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Cochin Bench (ITAT), the statutory appeal of the appellant - numbered as I.T.A.No.76/COCH/2025, relating to the Assessment Year 2015-16 - has been refused to be taken on board because, the explanation offered by them in seeking to condone the delay of 542 days in filing it, has been found to be incredulous and without credibility.
2. Smt.Preetha S. Nair – learned counsel for the appellant, conceded that the affidavit filed by her client before the learned Tribunal, in support of the application seeking condonation of delay, was not properly drafted; but argued that, this by itself could not have been a reason for the learned Tribunal to deny her client’s right to impel a Statutory Appeal before it, particularly when they are supported by binding judgments of the Ho
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
