Patinhare Purayil Jayaprasanth vs Income Tax Officer

[Cites 0, Cited by 0] Kerala High Court Patinhare Purayil Jayaprasanth vs Income Tax Officer on 24 March, 2026 2026:KER:25886 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE ZIYAD RAHMAN A.A. TUESDAY, THE 24TH DAY OF MARCH 2026 / 3RD CHAITHRA, 1948 WP(C) NO. 5582 OF 2026 PETITIONER: PATINHARE PURAYIL JAYAPRASANTH AGED 54 YEARS, SAROJINI NIVAS, PUTHAPPRA, AZHIKKODE P.O.,KANNUR, PIN - 670009 BY ADVS. SHRI.S.ARUN RAJ SMT.ANEESHA SIDHIK V. S. RESPONDENTS: 1 INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-4, KANNUR, AAYAKAR BHAVAN, MELE CHOVVA ROAD, KANNOTHUMCHAL, ELAYAVOOR, KANNUR, KERALA, PIN - 670006 2 THE ADDITIONAL/JOINT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS), NFAC /, PIRAMAL CHAMBERS, LALBAUG, MUMBAI, PIN - 400012 3 INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL COCHIN BENCH, KENDRIYA BHAVAN, KAKKANAD, ERNAKULAM,COCHIN, PIN - 682030 2026:KER:25886 WP(C) NO. 5582 OF 2026 2 BY ADVS. SRI.G.KEERTHIVAS, SC SHRI.HARIKUMAR G. (GOPINATHAN NAIR) THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 24.03.2026, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: 2026:KER:25886 WP(C) NO. 5582 OF 2026 3 JUDGMENT The petitioner is an assessee under the provisions of the Income tax Act, 1961. The challenge raised in this writ petition is against Ext.P6 order passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal. As per the said order the appeal submitted by the petitioner was rejected on the reason that, there was delay of 143 days in filing the appeal and no application for condonation of delay was submitted. Earlier, the petitioner had submitted the appeal against Ext.P3 order pertaining to the order of assessment for the year 2011-12. Ext.P4 is the memorandum of appeal in which the petitioner had specifically stated that, there is delay in filing the appeal. According to the petitioner, a separate application was filed along with the appeal for condoning the delay, but, in Ext.P6 order the appeal was rejected on the reason that, the petitioner failed to submit any delay condonation application. This writ petition is 2026:KER:25886 WP(C) NO. 5582 OF 2026 4 submitted in such circumstances. 2. A statement has been submitted by the respondents 1 and 2 by stating that, the petitioner did not submit any delay condonation application along with the appeal as claimed by the petitioner in this writ petition. Therefore, the respondents are seeking dismissal of the writ petition. 3. After hearing the learned Counsel for the petitioner and the learned Standing Counsel for the respondents, I find some merits in the contention put forward by the learned Counsel for the petitioner even though I find that, the petitioner could not establish the fact that, the appeal was accompanied by a delay condonation application. Since the respondents have specifically denied the receipt of the delay condonation application, the matter has to be decided as if no application has been submitted by the petitioner for condoning the delay. However, even if the matter is considered based on the said assumption, it is a fact to be 2026:KER:25886 WP(C) NO. 5582 OF 2026 5 noticed that, in Ext.P4 appeal memorandum, the petitioner had specifically stated that there is delay in submitting the appeal. Therefore, the Tribunal ought to have issued a defect notice to the petitioner, before rejecting the appeal. Admittedly, no such notice has been given so as to enable the petitioner to submit a delay condonation application. Thus, despite the fact that, the defect which prompted the Appellate Tribunal to dismiss the appeal as such, was a curable one, no opportunity was extended to the petitioner to cure the same. Therefore, I am of the view that, an interference is required. Accordingly, this writ petition is disposed of quashing Ext.P6 with a direction to the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal to reconsider the matter, if the petitioner submits a delay condonation application within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. Upon receipt of the same, the delay condonation application shall be considered by the Appellate 2026:KER:25886 WP(C) NO. 5582 OF 2026 6 Tribunal, and appropriate orders thereon shall be passed after giving the petitioner an opportunity for being heard. Sd/- ZIYAD RAHMAN A.A. JUDGE scs 2026:KER:25886 WP(C) NO. 5582 OF 2026 7 APPENDIX OF WP(C) NO. 5582 OF 2026 PETITIONER EXHIBITS Exhibit P-1 TRUE COPY OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER DATED 13-03-2014 U/S 143 (3) OF THE ACT PASSED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT FOR THE AY 2011-12 Exhibit P-2 TRUE COPY OF THE FIRST APPEAL FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) ON 01-04-2014 FOR THE AY 2011-12 Exhibit P-3 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 28-05- 2024 PASSED BY THE ADDL./JCIT (APPEALS)- 12, MUMBAI, FOR THE AY 2011-12 Exhibit P-4 TRUE COPY OF THE APPEAL DATED 12-12- 2024 SUBMITTED BEFORE THE 3RD RESPONDENT: INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, COCHIN FOR THE AY 2011-12 Exhibit P-5 TRUE COPY OF THE DELAY CONDONATION AFFIDAVIT AND PETITION DATED 11-12- 2024 SUBMITTED BEFORE THE 3RD RESPONDENT: INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, COCHIN FOR THE AY 2011-12 Exhibit P-6 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 12-02- 2025 IN ITA NO. 1045/COCH/2024 PASSED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT, INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, COCHIN BENCH FOR THE AY 2011-12 RESPONDENT EXHIBITS Annexure R1(a) True copy of the letter dated 12.03.2026 issued by the Assistant Registrar, Income Tax Appellate 2026:KER:25886 WP(C) NO. 5582 OF 2026 8 Tribunal, Cochin Bench to The Commissioner of Income Tax, Departmental Representative, ITAT Cochin