M/S. MUKTA MOTORS,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ITO, WARD 1(3)(1), AHMEDABAD

PDF · subscribers
ITA 815/AHD/2026Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad29 July 2026AY 2019-203 pages
AI SummaryPartly Allowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal before the CIT(A) considering the inadvertent error and the bona fide belief of the assessee. The matter was restored to the AO for verification of the assessee's contentions.

What were the facts?

The assessee's return of income inadvertently included a demand for deferred tax liability due to an error by the accountant. The assessee, a partnership firm, was not liable for this tax. A significant delay occurred in filing an appeal before the CIT(A) due to the death of the consultant who was supposed to file a rectification application.

What were the issues?

Whether the delay in filing an appeal before the CIT(A) due to an inadvertent error and death of a consultant should be condoned. Whether the demand raised due to a wrong entry in the return of income is sustainable.

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, “SMC” BENCH, AHMEDABAD

Before: Shri Sanjay Garg

For Appellant: Shri Rupesh R. Shah, AR
Hearing: 23/07/2026Pronounced: 29/07/2026

आदेश/O R D E R The present appeal has been preferred by the assessee against the order of the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), ADDL/JCIT(A), Raipur [hereinafter referred to as ‘Ld. CIT(A)’] dated 19/02/2026 passed u/s. 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) for the Assessment Year (AY) 2019-20.

2.

The assessee in this appeal is aggrieved by the action of the CIT(A) in dismissing the appeal of the assessee in limine and thereby confirming the action of the CPC in making the demand of Rs. 3,67,689/- on account of wrong punching in the column No. 44 relating to deferred tax liability. The Ld. AR for the assessee has stated that, in fact, the said column/provision is applicable to the companies and not

ITA No.815/Ahd/2026 M/s. Mukta Motors vs. ITO Asst.Year 2019-20 2 to the partnership firms and that the assessee was not liable to pay this tax. That inadvertently, the accountant of the assessee had mentioned the said amount in the column 44 resulting into the impugned demand of Rs. 3,67,689/-. The Ld. AR has submitted that noting the above error by the CPC, the assessee immediately contacted his consultant and requested him to move a rectification application u/s 154 of the Act. That the Ld. Consultant of the assessee duly assured to do so. He told the assessee that the limitation to file such application u/s 154 was four years. That he will do the needful in regular course. However, the consultant of the assessee delayed the filing of the application and always assuring the assessee that there was a period of limitation of four years in filing the application and the same will be duly filed and that the rectification will be carried out. However, in the meantime, the said consultant namely Amratbhai Prajapati got died. The assessee was under bona fide belief that the rectification application has been duly filed by him. Due to the above reasons, a long delay of five years and two months has occurred in filing the appeal before the Ld. CIT(A). The Ld. CIT(A), however, dismissed the appeal being barred by limitation.

3.

Admittedly, the disallowance made/demand raised in this case was due to an inadvertent error committed by the accountant of the assessee while filing the return of income. The assesse, otherwise, is not liable to pay the aforesaid tax. It has been held time and again by various courts of law that the Government Authorities should charge legitimate taxes from the citizens. In this case, though, there is an inordinate delay on the part of the assessee but, the claim of the assessee is apparently

ITA No.815/Ahd/2026 M/s. Mukta Motors vs. ITO Asst.Year 2019-20 3 admissible under law. So taking into consideration the overall facts and circumstances of the case and also noting that there is not any intentional delay or latches on the part of the assessee, the delay in filing the appeal before the CIT(A) is hereby condoned. The impugned order of the CIT(A) is set-aside. The matter is restored to the file of the AO to verify the contention of the assessee and if the AO finds merit in the aforesaid contention, he will allow the claim of the assessee.

4.

With the above observations, the appeal of the assessee is treated as allowed for statistical purposes.

Order pronounced in the Open Court on 29/07/2026.

Sd/- (Sanjay Garg) Judicial Member अहमदाबाद/Ahmedabad, िदनांक/Dated 29/07/2025 TRUE COPY Tanmay, Sr. P.S. आदेश की �ितिलिप अ�ेिषत/Copy of the Order forwarded to : 1. अपीलाथ� / The Appellant 2. ��थ� / The Respondent. 3. संबंिधत आयकर आयु� / Concerned CIT 4. आयकर आयु� अपील ( ) / The CIT(A)-(NFAC) 5. िवभागीय �ितिनिध आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण अहमदाबाद /DR,ITAT, Ahmedabad. , , 6. गाड� फाईल / Guard file. आदेशानुसार/ BY ORDER, सहायक पंजीकार (Asstt. Registrar) आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, 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 →