SUPRABHATPOWER AND AGRO LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-3(4), HYDERABAD

PDF · subscribers
ITA 548/HYD/2023Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad29 December 2023AY 2008-094 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal found that the CIT(A)'s order did not sufficiently address whether the appeal was filed within the time allowed by law and the relevant CBDT circular. Therefore, the matter was remanded back to the CIT(A) for verification.

What were the facts?

The assessee filed an appeal before the CIT(A) which was dismissed due to a 45-day delay. The assessee contended that the appeal was filed within time, with the delay being due to technical reasons in uploading the e-appeal, and cited a CBDT circular extending the time limit.

What were the issues?

The primary issue was whether the assessee's appeal was filed within the prescribed time limit, considering the circumstances of e-filing and a relevant CBDT circular.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 144,Section 147,Section 249(2)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, HYDERABAD BENCHES “A”, HYDERABAD

Before: SHRI RAMA KANTA PANDA & SHRI K.NARASIMHA CHARY

For Respondent: Shri Srikanth Reddy Y. DR
Hearing: 21/12/2023

आदेश / ORDER PER K. NARASIMHA CHARY, J.M: Aggrieved by the order dated 26/09/2023 passed by the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)- National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi (“Ld. CIT(A)”), in the case of Suprabhat Power and Agro Limited (“the assessee”) for the assessment year 2008-09, assessee preferred this appeal.

2.

At the outset, learned AR submitted that the learned CIT(A) observed in the impugned order that there was an unexplained delay of 45 days in preferring the appeal and, therefore, the appeal was liable to be dismissed. Learned AR further submitted that, as a matter of fact, there was no delay in filing the appeal inasmuch as the assessee submitted the paper form of appeal well within the time allowed, but due to technical reasons, the uploading of the same took some time. He submitted that as per CBDT Circular No. 20/2016, the time limit for filing of appeals in electronic form was extended till 15/06/2016 and also that the appeals filed in paper form and the e-appeals filed within such time were to be treated as filed within time.

3.

Per contra, learned DR placed heavy reliance on the impugned order and submitted that there is no proper filing of appeal within 30 days as allowed under section 249(2) of the Act and, therefore, while following the binding precedents, the learned CIT(A) rightly rejected the same.

4.

We have gone through the record in the light of the submissions made on either side. No doubt learned CIT(A) observed that the order under section 144 read with section 147 of the Act was passed on 31/03/2016 and the appeal was filed with a delay of 45 days. The order does not deal with the aspect whether or not the appeal in paper form was filed within time or either of paper form or e-filing happened within the time allowed by CBDT Circular No. 20/2016. It is a verifiable fact.

5.

We, therefore, deem it necessary to cause such verification to decide whether or not the presentation of appeal was within time allowed by section 249(2) of the Act in the light of CBDT Circular No. 20/2016. For this purpose, we set aside the impugned order and restore the appeal to the file of the learned CIT(A) for such verification. In case the presentation of appeal was within time as stated above, the learned CIT(A) will hear the assessee and dispose of the same according to law. Grounds are accordingly treated as allowed for statistical purposes.

6.

In the result, appeal of the assessee is treated as allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced in the open court on this the 29th day of December, 2023.

More judgments on Section 147

All 49,210 judgments and leading authorities on Section 147 →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →