FARM PEAK INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,KARNATAKA vs. DCIT, CIRCLE 3(1)(1) BANGALORE, BMTC BUILDING, KORAMANGALA

PDF · subscribers
ITA 147/BANG/2026Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore15 June 2026AY 2018-193 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) erred in dismissing the appeal as delayed, as the CBDT circular extended the filing deadline to 31.5.2021, making the appeal filed within time. The Tribunal restored the appeal to the CIT(A) for adjudication on merits.

What were the facts?

The assessee filed an appeal before the CIT(A) with a delay of 6 days. The CIT(A) dismissed the appeal without condoning the delay, citing insufficient cause. The assessee contended that the delay was due to the COVID-19 pandemic and that CBDT Circular No. 8/2021 extended the filing timelines.

What were the issues?

Whether the appeal filed before the CIT(A) was delayed, considering the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic and relevant CBDT circulars.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 143(3),Section 144(3A),Section 143(3B)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, ‘A’ BENCH : BANGALORE

Before: SHRI PRASHANT MAHARISHI, VICE – & SHRI KESHAV DUBEY

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ‘A’ BENCH : BANGALORE BEFORE SHRI PRASHANT MAHARISHI, VICE – PRESIDENT AND SHRI KESHAV DUBEY, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA No. 147/Bang/2026 Assessment Year : 2018-19

M/s. Farm Peak India Private Ltd., No. 1, Srikala Kaleshwara Nilaya, The Deputy Commissioner of Hospet Main Road, Income Tax, Opp Axis Bank, Koppal. Circle – 3(1)(1), Vs. Karnataka – 583 231. Bengaluru. PAN: AADCF0699Q APPELLANT RESPONDENT

: Ms. Chanchal Jain, CA Assessee by Revenue by : SriN. Balusamy– JCIT DR

Date of Hearing : 24-03-2026 Date of Pronouncement : 15-06-2026

ORDER PER PRASHANT MAHARISHI, VICE – PRESIDENT

1.

This appeal is filed by Farm Peak India Private Ltd. against the appellate order passed by the National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi (NFAC) [ld. CIT(A)] dated 17.12.2025 wherein the appeal filed by the assessee against the assessment order passed by the National e-Assessment Centre, Delhi [ld. AO] dated 16.4.2021 u/s. 143(3) r.w.s. 144(3A) & 143(3B) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 [the Act] was dismissed.

ITA No.147/Bang/2026 Page 2 of 3 2. Before the ld. CIT(A), there was a delay of 6 days in filing of the appeal which was not condoned and therefore the assessee has knocked at the door of the ITAT.

3.

The facts before the ld. CIT(A) show that the assessee received the assessment order on 16.4.2021 which was stated in Form 35 as received by the assessee also on that date. The assessee deposited filing fees on 20.5.2021 and filed the appeal on the same date. The ld. CIT(A) noted that the date of the assessment order is 16.4.2021 against which the appeal is filed on 21.5.2021 and therefore there is a delay of 6 days for which no sufficient cause is shown and therefore he dismissed the appeal of the assessee.

4.

At Sl.No.14 of Form 35, assessee stated that there is no delay in filing of the appeal, naturally no condonation of delay petition was also filed.

5.

On appeal before us, the ld. AR submitted that it was the second wave of COVID-19 and therefore there is a minimal delay of 6 days which has not been condoned by the ld. CIT(A). He further submitted that as those were days of second wave of COVID-19 in fact the date of service of order which is mentioned by the assessee is 16.4.2021 being the date of passing of the assessment order is also not correct, because the office of the assessee was not functioning properly and further the advise of the CA/counsel was also not available. He further submitted that as of 30.4.2021, the CBDT also issued Circular No.8/2021 extending certain timelines wherein the timelines were also extended upto 31.5.2021, therefore there is no delay in filing of the appeal.

6.

The ld. DR vehemently supported the order of the ld. CIT(A) and stated that the assessee did not say in Form 35 that the time limit has been extended upto 31.5.2021.

7.

We have carefully considered the rival contentions and perused the orders of the ld. lower authorities. We are highly astonished by the order of the ld. CIT(A) who has stated that in Form 35 assessee has mentioned the date of the order and date of receipt of such order being 16.4.2021, the appeal was filed on

ITA No.147/Bang/2026 Page 3 of 3 21.5.2021. Therefore, according to him, he stated that there is a delay of 6 days. It is apparent that in Form 35 assessee has stated that there is no delay. The claim of the assessee is supported by the CBDT Circular No.8/2021 which has extended the due date of filing appeal before the CIT(A) also to 31.5.2021. Thus, the assessee has correctly stated that there is no delay in filing of the appeal. Thus, the ld. CIT(A) is in error in dismissing the appeal of the assessee holding that it is delayed by 6 days. It is expected of the ld. CIT(A) to enquire from the AO that in Form 35 it is stated that appeal is filed in time, but in his own wisdom the ld. CIT(A) presumed in ignorance of CBDT Circular that appeal is filed late. Therefore the order of the ld. CIT(A) is not sustainable.

8.

In view of the above facts, without discussing the merits of the case, we restore the whole appeal back to the ld. CIT(A) to decide the appeal of the assessee on its merits. The assessee is also directed to furnish necessary information as called for by the ld. CIT(A). Accordingly the appeal of the assessee without adjudicating on the ground of merits is restored back to the file of ld. CIT(A) with the above directions.

9.

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced in the open court on 15th June, 2026.

Sd/- Sd/- (KESHAV DUBEY) (PRASHANT MAHARISHI) JUDICIAL MEMBER VICE-PRESIDENT Bangalore, Dated, the 15th June, 2026. *TNTS*/Desai S Murthy / Copy to: 1. Appellant 2. Respondent 3. CIT 4.CIT(A) 5. DR, ITAT, Bangalore By order

Assistant Registrar, ITAT, Bangalore

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →