SAROJ KANTA MOHANTY,MALKANGIRI vs. ASSISTANT DIRECTOR OF INCOME TAX, CPC, BENGALURU, BENGALURU

Shri P.K.Mishra, P.K.Mishra, ld AR appeared for the assessee appeared for the assessee and Shri S.C.Mohanty, ld Sr DR S.C.Mohanty, ld Sr DR represented on behalf of the revenue. represented on behalf of the revenue.

It was submitted by ld AR that the return filed by the assessee It was submitted by ld AR that the return filed by the assessee It was submitted by ld AR that the return filed by the assessee came to be processed and an intimation came to be issued u/s.143(1) of the Act to be processed and an intimation came to be issued u/s.143(1) of the Act to be processed and an intimation came to be issued u/s.143(1) of the Act to the assessee on 5.7.2022. Against the said intimation, the assessee had to the assessee on 5.7.2022. Against the said intimation, the assessee had to the assessee on 5.7.2022. Against the said intimation, the assessee had filed rectification petition u/s.154 of the Act on 18.7.2022. The assessee filed rectification petition u/s.154 of the Act on 18.7.2022. The assessee filed rectification petition u/s.154 of the Act on 18.7.2022. The assessee

P a g e 1 | 4 had also filed grievance petition against the said order on 18.11.2022. It was the submission that as the said rectification petition and the grievance petition have not been disposed of, the assessee had filed appeal before the ld CIT(A) on 11.11.2023. It was the submission that the appeal was filed belatedly before the ld CIT(A) as the assessee was awaiting response in respect of the rectification petition and the grievance petition filed. It was the submission that the ld Addl/JCIT(A) dismissed the assessee’s appeal on account of the delay without appreciating the fact that the assessee had sought for an alternate remedy in respect of filing of rectification petition u/s.154 and that the petition was not disposed of within the reasonable time and therefore, he had no option but to file the appeal. It was the submission that even till date neither the rectification petition nor the grievance petition has been disposed of much less considered for adjudication. It was the prayer that the delay in filing the appeal before the ld CIT(A) be condoned and ld CIT(A) be directed to dispose of the appeal on merits.

In reply, ld Sr DR submitted that the order passed by the ld Addl/JCIT(A) was not an order u/s.250 of the Act but was u/s.249 of the Act though wrongly mentioned as u/s.250 of the Act. It was the submission that the appeal of the assessee has not been admitted by the ld Addl/JCIT(A) and, therefore, it was not an appealable order. On merits, ld Sr DR vehemently supported the order of the ld Addl/JCIT(A).

I have considered the rival submissions. An appeal once filed by the assessee before the ld CIT(A) is to be disposed of. There is no procedure prescribed in the Income Tax Act for the purpose of admission of an appeal or for passing the interim order. Any order passed by the ld CIT(A) on appeal filed by the assessee before the ld CIT(A) would be an order passed u/s.250 of the Act. Therefore, I am not in agreement with the submissions of ld Sr DR that the order of the ld Addl/JCIT(A) is not an appealable order.

Coming to the facts on merits in the present case clearly shows that the assessee has filed rectification against the order u/s.143(1) of the Act. There is legitimate expectation by the assessee that when he files rectification application, same would be disposed off. It was this legitimate expectation in respect of the disposal of the rectification petition u/s.154 was not met. Considering the fact and for further remedial action, the assessee filed appeal before the ld CIT(A). Thus, it is not that the assessee was not taking care of its tax matters but because he had followed a remedy prescribed under the Act and that remedy was not adjudicated by the revenue that the assessee sought for redressal of grievance before the ld CIT(A). A perusal of section 154(8) of the Act shows that the rectification petition should have been disposed of within six months from the end of the month in which the application was received. Admittedly, this has also not been done. This being so, I find that the delay in filing appeal before the ld CIT(A) was not on account of any fault on the part of the assessee and the P a g e 3 | 4 reasons given by the assessee stands substantiated by the fact that he has produced evidences in respect of filing rectification petition u/s.154 and grievance petition. This being so, the delay in filing the appeal before the ld CIT(A) stands condoned and the issues in this appeal are restored to the file of the ld Addl/JCIT(A) for adjudication of the appeal of assessee on merits.

In the result, appeal of the assessee stands partly allowed for statistical purposes.