Loading judgment…
Facts
The assessee filed an appeal against an order under Section 143(1) of the Income Tax Act. The appeal was filed 814 days after the due date, and the CIT(A) dismissed it for being time-barred without condoning the delay.
Held
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal, citing the COVID-19 pandemic and professional lapse by the consultant as sufficient cause. The matter was restored to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication on merits.
Key Issues
Whether the delay in filing the appeal should be condoned and if the CIT(A) erred in dismissing the appeal without adjudicating the issue on merits.
Sections Cited
143(1), 36(1)(va), 139(1), 143(1)(a), 36
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, DELHI BENCH, ‘G’: NEW DELHI
Before: SHRI SUNIL KUMAR SINGH & SHRI BRAJESH KUMAR SINGH
This appeal by the assessee is directed against the order of the Ld.
Addl. Commissioner of Income Tax/JCIT(A)-2, Vadodara, dated 27.09.2024, arising out of intimation u/s 143(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred as ‘the Act’), dated 14.07.2020 for Assessment Year 2019-20.
Grounds of appeal raised by the assessee are as under:-
“1. That on the facts & in the circumstances of the case and in law, the order passed by the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax
(Appeals)/ National Faceless Appeal Centre ["Ld. CIT(A)/NFAC"] and the Centralised Processing Center (CPC") is bad in law.
2. That on the facts & in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in dismissing the appeal of the assessee on account of refusal to condone the delay of 127 days in filing the appeal without giving and adequate opportunity of being heard to the assessee and in any case not appreciating sufficient cause on part of the assessee for such delay, being for reasons and circumstances beyond it's control.
3. That the assessee preferred the appeal to the Ld. CIT(A)/NFAC aggrieved with the erroneous adjustment by CPC while processing it's ITR u/s.143(1)(a) of the Act by disallowing the Employees' contribution to Provident Fund and ESIC of Rs. 21,17,194/- u/s 36(1)(va) without appreciating that the said contributions were deposited in government treasury before the due date of filing of return u/s 139(1) of the IT Act, 1961 and further that such delay in deposit is not impacted by the prospective amendment made in section < <2(24) of the Act>> by the Finance Act, 2021.”
Brief facts of the case:- The present appeal is instituted on 06.10.2022 against the order u/s. 143(1) dated 14.07.2020 passed by CPC, Bangalore for AY.2019-20. The same was served on the assessee on 14.07.2020. Subsequently, the appeal was allocated to the e-Appeals Scheme in terms of Notification No. 33/2023 in F.No. 370142/10/2023- TPL dated 29.05.2023 issued by CBDT. The assessee is an individual. The assessee during the year filed ROI on 29.10.2019(within extended due date:
31.10.2019). declaring total income at Rs 33,53,410/-. However, the AO, CPC, Bengaluru vide intimation u/s 143(1) dated 14.07.2020 processed the ROI and computed the total income at Rs. 54,70,600/- and raised a demand of Rs. 10,00,260/-. The said demand was raised by the CPC, Bengaluru owing to adjustment of Rs.21,17,194/- made by way of addition to the total income with following comments, "Amounts debited to the profit and loss account, to the extent disallowable u/s 36 of the Act.
Aggrieved with the said order, the ld. Assessee preferred an appeal before the Ld. Addl. CIT(A). The Ld. Addl. CIT(A) noted that there was a delay of 814 days in filing of the appeal before the ld. CIT(A). The relevant reasons submitted by the assessee before the Ld. CIT(A) in para-6 is reproduced as under:-
“6. Condonation of Delay: In this case intimation u/s 143(1) of the act was passed on 14.07.2020 and admittedly served on the appellant on 14.07.2020 Therefore, the appeal was required to be filed by the appellant within 30 days from the service of the said intimation i.e on or before 14.08.2020 but the appeal has been filed on 06.10.2022 belated by 814 days. The appellant has submitted that, "the aforesaid delay is on account of professional lapses by the Consultant who had abruptly stopped providing services post conclusion of assessment as well as due to COVID 19 pandemic since then" as the reason for delay in filing of appeal and requested to condone the same.
4.1. The Ld. CIT(A) noted that in the present case, the assessee has neither mentioned any cogent and convincing ground for delay in filing the appeal nor furnished anything to prove that she had acted diligently and was not guilty of negligence. The ld. CIT(A) noted that the appeal was filed beyond the due date prescribed under law and no valid reason for same has been mentioned. Therefore, the Ld. CIT(A) did not condone the delay in filing the appeal and dismissed the appeal of the assessee.
Aggrieved with the order of the ld. CIT(A), the assessee is in appeal before us.
We have heard both the parties and perused the material available on record. It is seen from the facts that the order of the Assessing Officer dated 14.07.2020 was received by the assessee on 14.07.2020 and therefore the appeal should have been filed by 14.08.2020, whereas, the appeal was filed on 06.10.2022. We noted that the intimation u/s 143(1) of the Act was passed on 14.07.2006, which falls during the Covid period and the Hon’ble Supreme Court has excluded the period from 15.03.2020 till 28.02.2022 in MA No.21 of 2022 and further an extension of limitation period of 90 days from 01.03.2022 was also provided and thus the same in the case of the assessee for filing of the appeal before the Ld. Cit(A) expired on 31.05.2022.
So, after exclusion of the aforesaid period, there is a delay of 130 days (approx) the period of delay being from 01.03.2022 to 06.10.2022 (as the entire period from 14.08.2020 to 28.02.2022 was excluded and since on 01.03.2022 the entire limitation period was over and therefore the assessee was eligible for further 90 days grace period to file the said appeal). Even though the assessee was not diligent as she should have been but considering the period of the prevailing Covid during the major part of the delay and the explanation submitted by an affidavit that the delay was on account of professional lapse by the consultant who had abruptly stopped providing services post conclusion of assessment, we are satisfied that the assessee was prevented by a sufficient cause for the delay in filing the said appeal of 814 days (effective delay 130 days approx). Therefore, after careful consideration of the fact in this case and in the interest of justice, we condone the delay in filing the appeal of the assessee before the ld. CIT(A). Further, in this case, the ld. CIT(A) did not adjudicate the issue on merits. We, therefore, set-aside the order of the Ld. CIT(A) and restore back the matter to his file for fresh adjudication after giving reasonable opportunity of being heard. The assessee is also directed to appear before the ld. CIT(A).
In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes.
Order pronounced in the open court on 08th August, 2025.