Loading judgment…
Facts
The assessee filed two appeals against orders that dismissed their appeals before the CIT(A). The CIT(A) dismissed the appeals, considering them time-barred and also deeming them invalid because the original intimation under Section 143(1) was found to be invalid.
Held
The Tribunal held that if the original order (intimation) is invalid, it does not automatically render the assessee's appeal invalid. It also held that the appeal was filed within the extended limitation period due to the COVID-19 pandemic, as per the Supreme Court's directions.
Key Issues
Whether an appeal against an invalid order is itself invalid, and whether the appeal was filed within the prescribed limitation period, considering COVID-19 related extensions.
Sections Cited
250, 143(1), 143(2), 143(1A)
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “E” BENCH, MUMBAI
Before: SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN & SHRI OMKARESHWAR CHIDARA
Date of Hearing 16.10.2025 Date of Pronouncement 31.12.2025 ORDER PER SANDEEP GOSAIN, JM:
These two appeals have been filed by the assessee challenging the different impugned order dated 17.03.2025 respectfully passed under section 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (‘the Act’), by the National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC) / CIT(A) for the assessment year 2018-19 & 2020-21.
Since all the issues involved in these two appeals are 2. common and identical and belongs to one assessee therefore, they have been clubbed, heard together and consolidated order is being passed. Firstly we shall take A.Y 2020-21 as lead case and facts narrated therein.
ITA No. 3744/Mum/2025, A.Y 2020-21
The assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal:
1. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. ADD./JT. Commissioner of Income tax (Appeals) - 2 ("Ld. CIT(A)"), Coimbatore vide order dated March 17, 2025 under section 250 of the Income tax Act, 1961 ("the Act") erred in not appreciating that once the Intimation dated December 24, 2021 under section 143(1) of the Act ("the impugned order") has been held to be invalid by the Ld. CIT(A), then the only consequence that remains is that the Appellant's appeal must be allowed. The Ld. CIT(A) erred in dismissing the appeal of the Appellant, holding that, as the impugned order is invalid, the appeal is also invalid.
The Appellant prays that, as the impugned order has been held to be invalid, the appeal of the Appellant be allowed and the additions made in the impugned order be deleted. Appellant craves leaves to add to, alter, amend and / or delete the above grounds of appeal
3. The only ground raised by the assessee relates to challenging the order of Ld. CIT(A) in dismissing the appeal of the assessee.
In this regard we have heard the counsels for both the parties, perused the material placed on record, judgments cited before us and also the orders passed by the revenue
Transrail Lighting Ltd. Mumbai. authorities. From the records, we noticed that the assessee has challenged the impugned intimation u/s 143(1) of the Act before the Ld. CIT(A). The Ld. CIT(A), after observing that the impugned intimation dated December 24, 2021 has been passed after the issuance of notice u/s 143(2) of the Act dated June 29, 2021, held that adjustments made u/s 143(1)(a) of the Act are merely prima-facie admissible or inadmissible based on arithmetical errors are not legally valid. Thereafter, instead of allowing the appeal of the assessee, the Ld. CIT(A) dismissed the appeal of the assessee, holding that the impugned intimation and the appeal against the same are invalid.
We are of the view that once the Ld. CIT(A) has held that the intimation dated 24.12.2021 u/s 143(1) of the Act is invalid, then the only consequence that remains is that the assessee’s appeal should have been allowed. The Ld. CIT(A) has erred in dismissing the appeal of the assessee, holding that since the impugned order is invalid and the appeal is also invalid. Therefore, considering the totality of the facts and circumstances as discussed by us above, we hold that an invalid order passed by the AO does not render the appeal of the assessee invalid. Since the assessee was aggrieved by the invalid adjustment by the AO, therefore Ld. CIT(A) when once reached to the conclusion that the adjustment made u/s 143(1A) of the Act are not legally valid, then in the eventuality the appeal filed by the assessee ought to have been allowed. Therefore under above circumstances the order passed by Ld. CIT(A) is not in accordance with law. Hence, we set aside the same and allow the grounds raised by the assessee stands allowed.
ITA 3743/Mum/2025, A.Y 2020-21
The assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal:
1.1. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. ADD./JT. Commissioner of Income tax (Appeals) - 2 ("Ld. CIT(A)"), Coimbatore vide order dated March 17, 2025 under section 250 of the Income tax Act, 1961 ("the Act") erred in dismissing the appeal of the Appellant, inter alia, on the ground of alleged delay in filing of appeal without appreciating that there was no delay in filing of the appeal before. Ld. CIT(A). The appeal filed on May 26, 2022 before the Ld. CIT(A) was covered by the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Suo Moto WP C No. 3 of 2020 dated January 10, 2022. 1.2. The Appellant prays that the finding of the Ld. CIT(A) treating the appeal as delayed be held as erroneous and expunged. GROUND NO. 2: 2.1. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) erred in not appreciating that once the Intimation dated November 9, 2020 under section 143(1) of the Act ("the impugned order") has been held to be invalid by the Transrail Lighting Ltd. Mumbai. Ld. CIT(A), then the only consequence that remains is that the Appellant's appeal must be allowed. The Ld. CIT(A) erred in dismissing the appeal of the Appellant, holding that, as the impugned order is invalid, the appeal is also invalid. 2.2. The Appellant prays that, as the impugned order has been held to be invalid, the appeal of the Appellant be allowed and the additions made in the impugned order be deleted. The Appellant craves leaves to add to, alter, amend and / or delete the above grounds of appeal
7. We have heard the counsels for both the parties, perused the material placed on record, judgments cited before us and also the orders passed by the revenue authorities. Since the aforesaid appeal filed by the assessee on May 26, 2022, was squarely covered by the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Suo Moto WPC No. 3 of 2020 dated January 10, 2022 ("Annexure - A"). As in the aforesaid Order dated January, 10, 2022, the Hon'ble Supreme Court, after taking cognizance of the difficulties faced by the litigants in filing petitions / applications / suits / appeals within the period of limitation prescribed under the general law of limitation or under any special laws (both Central and / or State) due to the outbreak of COVID-19 Pandemic, directed that the period from 15.03.2020 to 28.02.2022 would be excluded for the purposes of limitation as may be prescribed under any general or special laws in respect of all judicial and quasi-judicial proceedings and that in cases where the limitation period would have expired during the period between 15.03.2020 to 28.02.2022, all persons shall have a limitation period of 90 days from 01.03.2022. In this Transrail Lighting Ltd. Mumbai. regard, the assessee draws our attention to the directions issued by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Paragraph No. 5 of the aforesaid Order dated January 10, 2022.
8. Since the limitation period for filing of the present Appeal would had expired during the period between 15.03.2020 and 28.02.2022 and hence, as per directions given by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Paragraph No. 5(III) read with Paragraph No. 5(I) of the aforesaid Order, the assessee was entitled to have a limitation period of 90 days from 01.03.2022 and accordingly, the limitation period for filing the present Appeal by the assessee would stand extended up to 29th May, 2022.
9. As the assessee had filed its appeal to the Ld. CIT(A) on 26th May, 2022, which was well within / before the aforesaid extended period of limitation up to 29th May, 2022. Therefore in our view the appeal filed by the assessee to the Ld. CIT(A) is not to be treated as time- barred. Thus the assessee was not required to file any application for condonation of delay in this regard, and the Ld. CIT(A) erred in dismissing the appeal of the assessee on this ground. Hence we allow this ground raised by the assessee.
10 This ground raised by the assessee relates to challenging the order of Ld. CIT(A) in dismissing the appeal of the assessee. Since we have already decided the identical ground in therefore our finding will apply mutatis mutandis. Consequently, the ground raised by the assessee is allowed.
11 In the result both the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed.
Order pronounced in the open court on 31/12/2025