Loading judgment…
Facts
The Assessee filed an appeal before the Ld. Commissioner with a significant delay of 1875 days. The Assessee attributed this delay to administrative issues, the Covid-19 pandemic, and seeking legal advice regarding an adjustment made under Section 143(1)(a) of the Act.
Held
The Tribunal held that while the initial appeal was dismissed in limine by the Ld. Commissioner for want of limitation, the delay could be condoned considering the Covid-19 period as per the Hon'ble Apex Court's suo-moto cognizance. The Assessee was directed to deposit Rs. 22,000/- and file relevant documents, after which the appeal would be decided on merit.
Key Issues
Whether the delay in filing the appeal before the Ld. Commissioner can be condoned, considering the impact of the Covid-19 pandemic and the Assessee's reasons.
Sections Cited
250, 143(1), 80P, 143(1)(a), 249(3)
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, MUMBAI BENCH “SMC”, MUMBAI
Before: SHRI NARENDER KUMAR CHOUDHRY
O R D E R
Per : Narender Kumar Choudhry, Judicial Member:
This appeal has been preferred by the Assessee against the order dated 14.07.2025, impugned herein, passed by the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) ADDL/JCIT (A) (in short Ld. Commissioner) u/s 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short ‘the Act’) for the A.Y. 2019-20.
Considering the peculiar fact that the Ld. Commissioner has dismissed the appeal of the Assessee in limine for want of limitation, the application for adjournment filed by the Assessee, stands rejected.
Coming to the merits of the case, it is observed that the CPC/Assessing Officer (AO) vide intimation dated 05.03.2020 u/s 143(1) of the Act, disallowed the deduction claimed by the Assessee M/s. Sahyadri Sahakari Patpedhi Ltd u/s 80P of the Act. Against the said intimation, the Assessee filed appeal before the Ld. Commissioner on 23.05.2025 with a delay of 1875 days. The Assessee before the Ld. Commissioner has claimed that due to administrative delays and also because of Covid-19 pandemic and also because of seeking professional advice on the legal validity of the adjustment made u/s 143(1)(a) of the Act, the delay has been occurred and therefore lenient view may be taken. The Assessee, as claimed by the Ld. Counsel, has also filed duly sworn affidavit before the Ld. Commissioner.
The Ld. Commissioner though considered the reasons stated by the Assessee for the delay, however, not found the same as acceptable on the reasons that it is well settled with the reasons stated thereof for condonation of delay should be acceptable. In other words, the reasons adduced must be properly pleaded, convincing and acceptable and explanation should be offered for condonation of the delay and the delay may be admitted or condoned u/s 249(3) of the Act only, if the Assessee could successfully demonstrated that it had sufficient cause within the meaning of limitation provision for not presenting the appeal within the period of 30 days, unless proper explanation is offered.
The Ld. Commissioner also observed that this office could not exercise its discretion in the proper perspective to advance substantial justice. As the Assessee has not submitted the genuine reason. Thus, in view of the negligence of the Act and lack of bonafide, the delay in filing the appeal cannot be condoned.
4.1 Thus, on the aforesaid reasons, the Ld. Commissioner declined to condone the delay and in effect dismissed the appeal of the Assessee in limine.
M/s. Sahyadri Sahakari Patpedhi Ltd 5. At this juncture, the Ld. Counsel for the Assessee has submitted that the order u/s 143(1) of the Act was issued during Covid-19 period, which resulted into non-noticing by the society and/or skipped from the attention of the Assessee society, however, once the demand notice was issued, then only the Assessee came to know about the passing of the order u/s 143(1) of the Act and thus without any delay, the Assessee immediately filed the appeal on 23.05.2025, with appropriate application for condonation of delay. The Assessee has not been benefited by the delay, which in fact, is reasonable, explainable and plausible.
On the contrary, the Ld. D.R. refuted the claim of the Assessee and submitted that even Covid period was over in 2022 itself but still the Assessee remained sleeping that shows negligence of the Assessee and therefore, no leniency can be afforded to the Assessee.
Having heard the parties and perusing the material available on record, this Court observes that admittedly, the order u/s 143(1) of the Act was passed just some days prior to Covid-19 period, which culminated into entire lock down throughout the nation and therefore the nation was on hold and considering that particular fact the Hon’ble Apex Court in suo-moto case cognizance No.3/2020 has excluded the period from 15.03.2020 to 28.02.2022 for filing of appeal, revision etc. in the Courts including Tribunal. Therefore, excluding the Covid period, as excluded by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case referred above, the delay would be around 1100 days only.
As the Assessee has claimed that said intimation/order was received during Covid-19 period and remained to be checked/noticed by the Assessee Society, as the society was not in M/s. Sahyadri Sahakari Patpedhi Ltd operation in its real sense due to Covid. The reasons stated by the Assessee for not noticing the aforesaid intimation, prima-facie appears to be bonafide, genuine and unintentional, therefore considering the peculiar facts and circumstances in totality, as the issue involved remains to be adjudicated in its right perspective and proper manner by the Ld. Commissioner, specifically in the absence of relevant documents and reply, which the Assessee failed to file, hence this Court, for just and proper decision of the case and substantial justice, equity and fairplay and for the balance of convenience, is inclined to condone the delay occurred in filing of first appeal before the Ld. Commissioner, however, subject to deposit of Rs. 22,000/- to be deposited in the Revenue Department under “other heads” within 30 days from today, suffice to say, the Ld. Commissioner shall afford reasonable opportunity of being heard to the Assessee.
The Assessee is also directed to file the relevant details and documents before the Ld. Commissioner. It is clarified that in case of subsequent default, the Assessee shall not be entitled for any leniency.
In the result, the Assessee’s appeal is allowed for statistical purposes for decision on merit.
Order pronounced in the open court on 13.11.2025.