ALCOVE CONSTRUCTION PVT. LTD. (NOW MERGED WITH ALCOVE INDUSTRIES PVT. LTD.),KOLKATA vs. I.T.O., WARD - 10(2), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

PDF · subscribers
ITA 732/KOL/2022Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata22 February 2023AY 2010-20113 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal found the CIT(A)'s observation regarding the delay to be factually incorrect. The appeal was filed within the extended timeline. Therefore, the CIT(A)'s order was set aside, and the matter was remanded for a decision on merits.

What were the facts?

The assessee's appeal before the CIT(A) was dismissed as barred by limitation due to a supposed delay of 42 days. The assessee contended that the appeal was filed on time, citing a CBDT circular extending the e-filing deadline.

What were the issues?

Whether the assessee's appeal before the CIT(A) was barred by limitation due to delay in filing. The correctness of the CIT(A)'s decision to dismiss the appeal in limine.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 250

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “B” BENCH KOLKATA

Before: Shri Sanjay Garg & Dr. Manish Borad

order : February 22, 2023 आदेश / ORDER संजय गग�, �या�यक सद�य �वारा / Per Sanjay Garg, Judicial Member: The present appeal has been preferred by the assessee against the order dated 01.12.2022 of the National Faceless Appeal Centre [hereinafter referred to as the ‘CIT(A)’] passed u/s 250 of the Income Tax Act (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Act’).

2.

At the outset, the ld. counsel for the assessee has brought our attention to the impugned order of the CIT(A) to submit that the appeal of the assessee was dismissed in limine holding that the same was barred by limitation because of the delay of 42 days in filing the appeal before him. The ld. counsel has submitted that the aforesaid observation Assessment year: 2010-11 Alcove Construction Pvt. Ltd of the CIT(A) that the appeal was barred by limitation was factually incorrect. He, in this respect, has relied upon the CBDT Circular No.20/2016 dated 26.05.2016, whereby, the time for e-filing of the appeals was extended upto 15.06.2016. However, the appeal in question, as noted by the CIT(A) himself, was filed by the assessee on 01.06.2016 itself. Therefore, there was no delay in filing the present appeal. Even otherwise, considering the fact that this was the first year of e-filing and the CBDT has also taken note of the difficulty in filing the e-appeal, the ld. CIT(A), otherwise, was supposed to condone the short delay in filing the present appeal.

3.

In view of the above, the impugned order of the CIT(A) is set aside. The delay in filing the appeal before the CIT(A), if any, stands condoned. The ld. CIT(A) is directed to decide the appeal on merits. Needless to say that CIT(A) will give adequate opportunity to the assessee to present its case.

4.

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is treated as allowed for statistical purposes.

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →