BERGGRUEN CAR RENTALS PRIVATE LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. ASSISTANT DIRECTOR OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL PROCESSING CENTRE, BENGALURU

PDF · subscribers
ITA 965/MUM/2023Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai21 June 2023AY 2017-20184 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) had used the wrong date for the order being appealed, leading to an incorrect calculation of the appeal period. The Tribunal held that the appeal was filed within the limitation period.

What were the facts?

The assessee filed an appeal with the CIT(A) which was dismissed as time-barred by 216 days. The assessee argued that the appeal was filed within the statutory time limit as the order being appealed was digitally signed and served much later than its stated date.

What were the issues?

Whether the appeal filed before the CIT(A) was time-barred due to the CIT(A) considering the wrong date of the order. Whether the disallowance under Section 36(1)(va) was justified.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 250,Section 154,Section 246A,Section 143(1)(a),Section 36(1)(va)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, MUMBAI BENCH “B”, MUMBAI

Before: SHRI VIKAS AWASTHY & SHRI GAGAN GOYAL

For Appellant: Shri Ashwin Kashinath
For Respondent: Shri C. T. Mathews , Sr. AR
Hearing: 21/06/2023Pronounced: 21/06/2023

This appeal by assessee is directed against the order of National Faceless Appeal Centre (for short “NFAC”) dated 27.02.2023 u/s. 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short ‘the Act’) for A.Y. 2016-17. The assessee has raised the following grounds (revised) of appeal:-

1 The Ld. CIT (Appeals) erred in dismissing the appeal in limine on the ground that the appeal was filed with a delay of 216 days. It is submitted that the order passed under section 154 of Act dated 20th June 2019 was digitally signed and served upon the appellant on 21st February 2020. In accordance with the provisions of Section 246A of the Act, an appeal to the CIT (Appeals) should be filed within 30 days. The Appellant filed the appeal against the impugned order on 29th February 2020 i.e. within the statutory time limit for filing the appeal. 2 The Ld. CIT (Appeals) erred in confirming disallowance of Rs. 12,88,782/- under section 36(1) (va) of the Act without appreciating that the payment of employee's contribution to the provident fund was paid within the extended due date granted by EPFO. 3 The Ld. CIT (Appeals) erred in confirming disallowance of Rs. 12,88,782/- under section 36(1)(va) of the Act without appreciating that the disallowance made by CPC, Bengaluru was beyond the scope of permissible adjustments under section 143(1)(a) read with section 154 of the Act.

2.

The brief facts of the case are that assessee company engaged in the business of transport and logistics. Assessee filed its return of income on 27.10.2017 declaring total income at Rs. 9, 54, 40,142/-. The return was processed by Central Processing Cell, Bengaluru vide intimation dated 28th March 2019 u/s 143(1) of the Act determining the total income of Rs. 9,89,74,885/-. The assessee filed request for rectification on 11.04.2019. The rectification request was disposed vide order dated 28th June 2019 but the same was digitally signed on 21.02.2020 by ADIT, CPC and assessee received the same through an email on very same day. In this order u/s. 154, ADIT, CPC rejected the claim of the assessee again. Assessee being aggrieved with this order passed u/s. 154 preferred an appeal before the Ld. CIT (A) on 29.02.2020. In this order passed u/s. 250, Ld. CIT (A) rejected the appeal of the assessee on ground that the same is time barred by 216 days. This appeal of the assessee before the Ld. CIT (A) dismissed in limine without discussing the merits of the case.

3.

Assessee being further aggrieved filed this appeal before us. We have gone through the order of CPC passed u/s. 154 dated 28th June 2019, intimation from CPC dated 21.02.2020 with DIN No. CPC/1718/U6/1902526511 with even date and order of the Ld. CIT (A). It is observed that the Ld CIT (A) in his order picked a wrong date of order u/s. 154 i.e. 28th June 2019. Whereas the actual date of signing the order is 21.02.2020. Considering these facts, we find that ground no. 1 raised by assessee has merit and there is a mistake in the order of Ld. CIT (A). In the result, ground no. 1 raised by the assessee is allowed and matter is restored back to the file of Ld. CIT (A) for fresh adjudication to consider the merits of the case after giving a proper opportunity of being heard. We further hold that the appeal of the assessee before Ld. CIT (A) was filed within limitation.

More judgments on Section 154

All 8,676 judgments and leading authorities on Section 154 →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →