UZIND CORPORATION,NEW DELHI vs. ADIT, BENGALURU

PDF · subscribers
ITA 2630/DEL/2026Status: DisposedITAT Delhi29 June 2026AY 2019-203 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal before the CIT(A), considering the COVID-19 period and the pending rectification application as sufficient cause. The matter was then remitted back to the CIT(A) to decide the appeal on merits.

What were the facts?

The assessee filed an appeal against an intimation order, which was dismissed by the CIT(A) for being delayed by 1502 days. The delay occurred during the COVID-19 pandemic, and the assessee had also filed a rectification application that was pending.

What were the issues?

Whether the delay in filing the appeal before the CIT(A) was justifiable due to the COVID-19 pandemic and a pending rectification application. Whether the CIT(A) should have decided the appeal on merits instead of dismissing it on limitation.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 143(1),Section 250,Section 249(3),Section 154

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, DELHI BENCH ‘E’: NEW DELHI

For Appellant: Ms. Sweeti Kothari, CA
For Respondent: Shri Tarun Sharda, Sr. DR
Hearing: 29/06/2026Pronounced: 29/06/2026

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH ‘E’: NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI MAHAVIR SINGH, VICE PRESIDENT AND SHRI MANISH AGARWAL, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA No.2630/Del/2026 (ASSESSMENT YEAR 2019-20) Uzind Corporation, ADIT, II Floor Eros Cinema CPC, Bengaluru. Building, Jangpura Vs. Extension, New Delhi-110014. PAN-AAAFU1597J (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee by Ms. Sweeti Kothari, CA Department by Shri Tarun Sharda, Sr. DR Date of Hearing 29/06/2026 Date of Pronouncement 29/06/2026 O R D E R PER MANISH AGARWAL, AM: This appeal is filed by the Assessee against the order of Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), Panaji [ld. CIT(A)] dated 25.02.2026 u/s 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (“the Act” in short) arising out of the intimation order passed u/s 143(1) of the Act dated 15.06.2020 for Assessment Year 2019-20.

2.

Heard both the parties and perused the materials available on record. It is observed that Ld. CIT(A) has dismissed the appeal of the assessee by not admitting the same on the ground of limitation u/s 249(3) of the Act as per the Ld. CIT(A), the appeal was filed delayed by 1502 days and assessee has not given any sufficient and reasonable cause for the delay. It is observed that the intimation order u/s 143(1) of

2 ITA No.2630/Del/2026 Uzind Corporation vs. ADIT the Act was issued on 15.06.2020 i.e. during the period of COVID-19 Pendamic. Thereafter, the assessee has filed a rectification application u/s 154 on 10.05.2022 before the CPC requesting for correction in the intimation order. Since, the said petition has yet been disposed off, therefore, the assessee has left with no other alternate but to file an appeal against the intimation order u/s 143(1) dated 15.062020. Under these circumstances, the appeal was filed delayed by 1502 days before the ld. CIT(A).

3.

If we exclude the period of Covid-19 Pandemic as has been directed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Suo Motu Writ Petition (Civil) No.3 of 2020 dated 8th March, 2021 and further considered the fact that the assessee has filed the rectification application on 10.05.2022 which is well within the period of limitation as allowed by the hon’ble Supreme court. Further the rectification application filed by the assessee has not yet been disposed of by the Revenue, compelling the assessee to file of appeal against the intimation order u/s 143(1) of the Act. This constitutes the reasonable and sufficient cause for filing the appeal delayed before the ld. CIT(A) and accordingly, we hereby condoned the delay in filing the appeal before the Ld. CIT(A).

4.

It is observed that Ld. CIT(A) has not decided the appeal of the assessee the issues raised on merits, therefore, we remit the matter to the file of Ld. CIT(A) with directions to decide the appeal of the assessee on merits as per alw after providing f reasonable opportunities of being heard to the assessee. With these directions, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes.

3 ITA No.2630/Del/2026 Uzind Corporation vs. ADIT 5. In the result, the appeal of the Assessee is allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced in the open Court on 29.06.2026.

Sd/- Sd/-/- - (MAHAVIR SINGH) (MANISH AGARWAL) VICE PRESIDENT ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Dated: 02.07.2026. *PK, Sr. PS* Copy forwarded to: 1. Appellant 2. Respondent 3. CIT 4. CIT(Appeals) 5. DR: ITAT ASSISTANT REGISTRAR ITAT NEW DELHI

More judgments on Section 249(3)

All 1,376 judgments and leading authorities on Section 249(3) →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →