Loading judgment…
Facts
The assessee filed its return of income and later received an intimation u/s 143(1) with additions/disallowances. The assessee appealed to the CIT(A) but the appeal was dismissed in limine due to a delay of 799 days.
Held
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal before the CIT(A) due to reasons such as change in personnel handling IT compliances and pursuing alternate remedies. The Tribunal remanded the case back to the CIT(A) to decide the appeal on merits.
Key Issues
Whether the delay in filing the appeal before the CIT(A) should be condoned and if the CIT(A) erred in dismissing the appeal in limine without considering the reasons for delay.
Sections Cited
139(1), 143(1), 249(3), 250
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “E” BENCH, MUMBAI
Before: SHRI VIKRAM SINGH YADAV, HON’BLE & MS. KAVITHA RAJAGOPAL, HON’BLE
O R D E R
PER KAVITHA RAJAGOPAL, JM:
The captioned appeals are filed by the assessee challenging the order of the ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)/ Addl./JCIT(A)- 2, Hyderabad, [hereinafter the ‘ld. CIT(A)’] passed u/s 250 of the Income- tax Act, 1961 [hereinafter the ‘Act’] relevant to Assessment Years 2021-22 and 2022-23.
As the facts are identical in both these appeals, we hereby pass a consolidated order by taking AY 2021-22 as the lead year, for the sake of convenience.
2 & 5526/Mum/2025 Assessment Year: 2021-22 & 2022-23 3. Though the assessee has raised as many as fourteen (14) grounds of appeal
, but the crux of arguments revolved around the solitary issue that the ld. CIT(A) had erred in dismissing the appeal in limine on the ground of delay in filing of the appeal.
4. Brief facts of the case are that the assessee company filed its return of income u/s 139(1) of the Act on 15/03/2022 declaring total income at Rs. 15,89,18,432/- claiming refund of Rs. 36,530/-. The same was processed u/s 143(1) of the Act and the vide intimation dated 13/11/2022, passed by the CPC, where certain additions/disallowances were made to the total income of the assessee thereby determining the total income at Rs. 16,73,03,220/-.
5. Aggrieved, the assessee preferred an appeal before the ld. First Appellate Authority who, vide order dated 18/07/2025 dismissed the appeal of the assessee for the reason that the appeal was filed belatedly i.e., 799 days after the prescribed period of limitation for which the assessee was unable to explain ‘sufficient cause’ u/s 249(3) of the Act.
6. Further aggrieved, the assessee is in appeal before us challenging the impugned order of the ld. CIT(A).
7. We have heard rival submissions and perused the material available on record. The ld. AR for the assessee contended that the ld. CIT(A) had dismissed the appeal of the assessee in limine without condoning the delay caused in filing the appeal before the ld. First Appellate Authority. The ld. AR further contended that the delay in filing the first appeal was bona fide and not just wanton and the ld. CIT(A) erred in not considering the reasons specified by the assessee. The ld. AR prayed that the assessee be 3 I.T.A. No. 5525 & 5526/Mum/2025 Assessment Year: 2021-22 & 2022-23 given one more opportunity to present its case before the ld. CIT(A) as the assessee has a good case on merits. 7.1. The ld. DR, on the other hand, vehemently opposed for extending the assessee one more opportunity, for the reason that the assesse has not substantiated the delay in filing the first appeal with ‘sufficient cause’. The ld. DR relied on the order of the ld. CIT(A).
8. Upon perusal of the rival contentions, it is observed that the assessee had filed an affidavit before the ld. CIT(A) for condoning the delay stating that the concerned person who was handling the IT compliances was changed and that the intimation u/s 143(1) was brought to the knowledge of the new team only after a considerable amount of time and that since there were multiple years involved, the appeal got further delayed. It is further observed that there was change in the jurisdiction from Mumbai to Bengaluru and that the assesse was also pursuing alternate remedy of filing response to the outstanding demand in the IT-Portal which was also said to be a reason for the delay. It is also evident that the assesse has filed response to the outstanding demand on the IT-portal against the demand raised in consequence of 143(1) intimation and has been waiting for the same to be decided which again was another reason for the assessee to prefer the appeal before the ld. CIT(A) belatedly. It is further stated that there has been no response to the same till date.
9. On considering the same and on perusal of the contentions of the ld. AR, we deem it appropriate to condone the delay caused in filing the appeal before the ld. CIT(A) and thereby remand all these issues back to 4 I.T.A. No. 5525 & 5526/Mum/2025 Assessment Year: 2021-22 & 2022-23 the file of the ld. CIT(A) to decide the same on the merits of the case by adhering to various decisions relied upon by the ld. AR where the Hon’ble Apex Court and the Hon’ble High Courts have held that a liberal view ought to be taken while condoning the delay and to decide the issue on merits rather than dismissing the same in limine on technical issues. We, therefore, direct the ld. CIT(A) to pass a speaking order on the merits of the case after giving sufficient opportunity of being heard to the assessee on the merits and in accordance with law. The assessee is also directed to co-operate with the proceedings before the ld. CIT(A) without any undue delay from its side. Accordingly, assessee’s appeal for AY 2021-22 is allowed for statistical purposes.
10. The facts prevailing in ITA No. 5526/Mum/2025 for AY 2022-23 are identical with AY 2021-22 adjudicated supra and hence the decision rendered by us hereinabove for AY 2021-22 shall apply mutatis mutandis for AY 2022-23 also.