SHRI AMIN SHARIF RATHER ,SRINAGAR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD -1, SRINAGAR

ITA 577/ASR/2025Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar24 July 2026AY 2018-194 pages
AI SummaryPartly Allowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) was not legally justified in dismissing the appeal in limine under Section 249(3) of the Act for the delay arising out of the COVID-19 pandemic. The Tribunal found that the period in question was covered under TOLA and therefore condoned the delay, directing the appeal to be admitted. Regarding the merits of the disallowances, the Tribunal noted that the assessee had not participated in the assessment proceedings nor before the CIT(A). Consequently, the Tribunal remanded the matter back to the CIT(A) to adjudicate the grounds of appeal on merits. The assessee was directed to file all documentary evidence and submissions in support of their contentions and to fully cooperate in the appellate proceedings. The appeal was allowed for statistical purposes.

What were the facts?

The assessee, Amin Sharief Rather, filed an appeal before the ITAT against an order of the CIT(A), NFAC, Delhi. The CIT(A)'s order stemmed from an assessment order passed by the AO, NeAC. The assessee, a general commission agent, declared an income of Rs. 7.68 lakhs for AY 2018-19. The assessment was selected for scrutiny regarding business expenses. Due to non-compliance with notices, the AO disallowed 100% of certain expenses (entertainment, conference, festival celebration, newspaper) totaling Rs. 2.06 lakhs under Section 69C and disallowed a Chapter VIA deduction of Rs. 1.50 lakhs for lack of evidence. The CIT(A) dismissed the assessee's first appeal in limine due to a delay of 222 days, refusing to condone it despite the COVID-19 pandemic.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the CIT(A) was legally justified in refusing to condone the delay of 222 days in filing the first appeal, considering the period was covered under the Taxation and other Laws Relaxation of Certain Provisions Act, 2020 (TOLA)? (Question of law and fact, concerning Section 249(3) of the IT Act and TOLA). Assessee's contention: The delay should have been condoned as the period was covered by TOLA, and the CIT(A) was not justified in refusing to appreciate the extension already allowed. The assessee sought condonation of delay and adjudication on merits. Revenue's contention: Misquoting a section is not fatal, and the substance over form should prevail. The AO's action was valid as they had the power to make disallowances. The assessee never responded to notices, leaving the AO with no opportunity to examine books. The AO made an estimated disallowance on an ad-hoc basis, even if a wrong section was quoted. The substance of the action was correct.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 69C,Section 249(3),Section 143(3),Section 250

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AMRITSAR BENCH, AMRITSAR BEFORE SH. S. RIFAUR RAHMAN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SH. UDAYAN DAS GUPTA, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA- No.577/Asr/2025 Assessment Year: 2018-19 Amin Sharief Rather; 1st Floor; Vs. A.O. NeAC, Shri Chander Chinar Trust Delhi. Building; Regal Chowk; Srinagar, Jammu and Kashmir: [PAN:-AHTPR3243E] (Respondent) (Appellant) Appellant by Respondent by Sh: Abdul Majid Zargar_CA Sh. Manek Shah Kapoor, Sr: DR Date of Hearing_ Date of Pronouncement 20.07.2026 21.07.2026 ORDER Per: Udayan Dasgupta_JM: 1 . This appeal is filed by the assessee against the order of ld. CIT(A); NFAC; Delhi, passed uls 250 of the IT Act; 1961, dated 30.06.2025, which has emanated from the order of the AO, NeAC, passed u/s 143(3) of the Act; dated 08.03.2021. 2 Brief facts of this case are that the assessee is a general commission agent commodity brokers and auctioneers and has filed his return declaring an income of Rs.7.68 lakhs, in ITR _ 3, which was selected for scrutiny for verification of business expenses claimed in the return. In absence of any IT,A. No.577/Asr/2025 Assessment Year; 2024-25 compliance to various notice issued u/s 143(2) followed by subseque

The order continues below.

Read the full judgment

A free account opens 10 full judgments a month. Re-reading one you have already opened does not count again.

Create a free accountSign in

See plans and prices

The summary, the parties, the sections and the citations above are open to everyone and always will be. Only the text of the order and the PDF are metered.

More judgments on Section 69C

All 8,217 judgments and leading authorities on Section 69C →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →