SUJAG FINE CHEMICALS PVT. LIMITED,VADODARA vs. THE ITO, WARD-2(1)(1), VADODARA

PDF · subscribers
ITA 1022/AHD/2025Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad13 August 2026AY 2020-215 pages
AI SummaryAllowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal. The impugned order of the CIT(A) was set aside, and the AO was directed to give relief to the assessee as per the rectification orders passed by the CPC.

What were the facts?

The assessee's appeal was filed with a significant delay of 1012 days. The delay was attributed to the assessee pursuing rectification applications before the CPC and AO, which were eventually allowed, leading to the deletion of the entire demand.

What were the issues?

Whether the delay in filing the appeal is condonable due to bonafide reasons and pursuit of alternative remedies. Whether the AO should give effect to rectification orders despite a dismissed appeal.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 154,Section 250

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “D” BENCH, AHMEDABAD

Before: SHRI SANJAY GARG & SMT. ANNAPURNA GUPTA

For Appellant: Shri Rushin Patel, A.R, Shri Rameshwar P Meena, Sr.DR
For Respondent: Shri Rameshwar P Meena, Sr.DR
Hearing: 19/05/2026

Per Sanjay Garg, Judicial Member:

The present appeal has been preferred by the assessee against the order of the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (hereinafter referred to as “NFAC”), Delhi (hereinafter referred to as “CIT(A)”), dated 23.05.2022 passed under Section 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961

ITA No.1022/Ahd/2025 [Sujag Fine Chemicals Pvt. Limited vs. ITO] A.Y. 2020-21 - 2 –

(hereinafter referred to as the “Act”) and relates to Assessment Year (A.Y.) 2020-21.

2.

This appeal is barred by 1012 days. A separate application in the form of affidavit of Shri Bharat G Popat, authorized signatory of the assessee company has been filed, the contents of which, are self-explanatory, which, for the sake of ready reference, are reproduced as under:

“I, Bharat G Popat, aged 54 years, residing at D/301, Shreeji Residency, Sun Pharma Road, Atladra, Vadodara 390 012, solemnly affirm and state on oath as follows to explain the delay of 1012 days in filing the appeal before the Hon'ble Income Tax Appellate Tribunal in case of Sujag Fine Chemicals Pvt. Ltd. for A.Y. 2020-21. 2. I am Authorized Signatory of Sujag Fine Chemicals Pvt. Ltd. Two adjustments were made vide Intimation order u/s 143(1) dated 23.12.2021, viz., denial of depreciation on opening WDV of fixed assets and denial of benefit of lower tax rate u/s 115BAA on account of non-filling of Form 10-IC. We had filed rectified return correcting the details of opening WDV of fixed assets on 12.01.2022 which was accepted vide first rectification order dated 26.04.2022. However, the denial of benefit of lower tax rate u/s 115BAA was sustained. 3. Thereafter, relying on CBDT Circular No.6/2022, we filed Form 10-IC on 26.04.2022 and thereafter, again filed a rectification request to CPC to reprocess the return. However, CPC did not delete the adjustment of denial of benefit of lower tax rate u/s 115BAA vide another rectification order dated 26.04.2022. 4. We had also simultaneously filed an appeal before the ld. CIT(A) against the Intimation order u/s 143(1). We missed out on responding to effectively only one notice of hearing issued by the ld. CIT(A) in May 2022 and for that reason, the appeal was dismissed vide appellate order dated 23.05.2022.

ITA No.1022/Ahd/2025 [Sujag Fine Chemicals Pvt. Limited vs. ITO] A.Y. 2020-21 - 3 –

5.

After the passing of order u/s 250 dated 23.05.2022, we had again filed a rectification request to CPC on 05.07.2022 which was allowed vide rectification order dated 05.07.2022 and entire demand was deleted. 6 However, the ld. AO passed Appeal Effect Giving order dated 23.06.2022 which was served to us on 22.07.2022, restoring the additions/adjustments made in the Intimation order u/s 143(1) dated 23.12.2021. Since the rectification order dated 05.07.2022 was passed subsequent to the appellate order dated 23.05.2022, we were under the bonafide belief that the rectification order dated 05.07.2022 would be given effect to and the demand for the relevant year would be deleted. Under such bonafide belief, we requested the ld. AO to give effect to the rectification order dated 05.07.2022, vide our letter dated 25.07.2022. However, the ld. AO did not respond to the said letter. 7. Thereafter, in response to recovery letters dated 19.12.2022 and 08.07.2024, we again requested the ld. AO to give effect to the rectification order dated 05.07.2022 and delete the demand for the relevant year. However, we did not receive any response to our request letters for a long time and with change in the incumbency, the new Assessing Officer advised us to file an appeal. We therefore, filed an appeal against the appellate order u/s 250 dated 23.05.2022 before the ld. CIT(A) on 11.01.2025, anticipating that the ld. CIT(A) would consider the rectification order dated 05.07.2022 and modify its earlier order to delete the demand. 8. However, the ld. CIT(A) dismissed the second appeal vide order u/s 250 dated 04.03.2025, stating that appeal cannot be filed against appellate order u/s 250 and suggested us to file an appeal before the Hon'ble ITAT. Thereafter, we took advice of an advocate who advised us to file an appeal before the Hon'ble ITAT and we filed the appeal before the Hon'ble ITAT belatedly on 08.05.2025. 9. It is because of the above mentioned facts that the delay of 1012 days has taken place. It may kindly be appreciated that there was no mala fide intention in delaying the filing of appeal and the delay has arisen because of bona fide reasons as have been stated herein above. It is also pertinent to note that, it is not a case of negligence but we were pursuing remedies before wrong forums, which may be considered as a sufficient cause.

ITA No.1022/Ahd/2025 [Sujag Fine Chemicals Pvt. Limited vs. ITO] A.Y. 2020-21 - 4 –

10.

I say that whatever I have stated above is true to the best of my knowledge, information and belief and I believe the same to be true.”

3.

A perusal of the contents of the aforesaid affidavit of key persons of the assessee would reveal the delay of 1012 days in filing the appeal occurred because of parallel remedy pursued by the assessee by way of making rectification applications u/s 154 of the Act before the CPC / Assessing Officer (in short ‘the AO’). Incidentally, the rectification applications of the assessee have been allowed by the CPC, firstly, vide order dated 26.04.2022, whereby, the adjustment made by the CPC by denying depreciation on opening Written Down Value (‘WDV’) of fixed assets has been deleted / withdrawn. However, the benefit of lower tax rate u/s 115BAA of the Act, was not granted. Subsequently, the said claim of the assessee has been allowed by the CPC on another rectification application filed by the assessee vide its rectification order dated 05.07.2022 and the entire demand was deleted. However, because of the dismissal of the appeal of the assessee due to non-representation, the AO did not grant benefit of the rectification orders passed by the AO and, in fact, while giving appeal effect order, again made the impugned additions / adjustments, despite the same being deleted / withdrawn vide two separate rectification orders by the CPC. Considering over all facts and circumstances of the case, the delay in filing the present appeal is, hereby, condoned. The impugned order of the Ld. CIT(A) is set aside and the AO is directed to give relief to the

ITA No.1022/Ahd/2025 [Sujag Fine Chemicals Pvt. Limited vs. ITO] A.Y. 2020-21 - 5 –

assessee as per the two separate rectification orders passed by the CPC as noted above. With the above observations, the appeal of the assessee is, hereby, allowed.

4.

In the result, the appeal of the assessee stands allowed.

This Order pronounced on 13/08/2026 under Rule 34(4) of the ITAT Rules, 1963

Sd/- Sd/- (ANNAPURNA GUPTA) (SANJAY GARG) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER Ahmedabad; Dated 13/08/2026 S. K. SINHA True Copy आदेश क� �ितिल�प अ�े�षत/Copy of the Order forwarded to : 1. अपीलाथ� / The Appellant ��यथ� / The Respondent. 2. 3. संबंिधत आयकर आयु� / Concerned CIT आयकर आयु�(अपील) / The CIT(A)- 4. 5. �वभागीय �ितिनिध, आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, अहमदाबाद / DR, ITAT, Ahmedabad 6. गाड� फाईल / Guard file. आदेशानुसार/ BY ORDER,

उप/सहायक पंजीकार (Dy./Asstt. Registrar) आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, अहमदाबाद / ITAT, Ahmedabad

More judgments on Section 154

All 8,676 judgments and leading authorities on Section 154 →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →