MAHARASHTRIYA AIKYAVARDHAK PARASPAR SAHAKARI MANDAL PATPEDHI LTD.,MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 14(2)(1), MUMBAI, MUMBAI

PER OM PRAKASH KANT, AM

This appeal by the assessee is directed against order dated
07.11.2024 passed by the Ld. Commissioner of Income-tax
(Appeals) – National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi [in short ‘the Ld.
CIT(A)’] for assessment year 2018-19, raising following grounds:
1. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) erred in not admitting the appellant's appeal filed on 27.05.2021 o the prescribe appellant sub time limit to f vide CBDT's C filing of appea restored to the 2. On the fact appellant sub 80P of the A deduction u/s 2. At the outset, th this appeal has been that the person auth and was away from h appeal on time. In v was a sufficient caus delay of 38 days in fi admitted for adjudica
3. We have heard the relevant materi impugned order, dec ground that the sam
32
days, without condonation thereof.
are as under:
“2. On perus filed on 27.05
been passed
Maharashtriya
Sahakar
ITA n the ground that the said appeal was n d time as provided in section 249(2) of bmits that the Ld. CIT(A) failed to appre file the said appeal stood extended up t
Circular No.8 of 2021 and hence, there wa al. Your appellant, therefore, prays that e file of the Ld. CIT(A) for adjudication on ts and in the circumstances of the case, a bmits that disallowance of its claim for d ct is unjustified. The appellant, therefor s. 80P be allowed to it.
he Ld. Counsel for the assessee n filed with a delay of 38 days horized to file appeal was bein head quarter due to ill health, c view of reasons explained, we fo se for delay in filing the appeal iling this appeal was condoned ation.
rival submissions of the parti ials on record. The learned clined to admit the assessee’s me had been filed with a delay o any accompanying applic
The relevant observations of th al of form 35, it is seen that the appea
5.2021. However the order u/s 143(3) of on 22.03.2021 and the appellant itself
Aikyavardhak Paraspar ri Mandal Patpedhi Ltd.
2
A No. 1668/MUM/2025
not filed within f the Act. The eciate that the to 31.05.2021
as no delay in the appeal be its merits.
and in law, the deduction u/s.
re, prays that e submitted that s. He submitted ng senior citizen could not file the ound that there and accordingly and appeal was ies and perused
CIT(A), in the s appeal on the of approximately cation seeking he learned CIT(A) al has been the Act has f in form 35

has mentione appellant was vide section appellant has Therefore, it appellant’s pa
3. Further, it mentioned tha true as vide f delay in filing in filing of ap delay nor req not satisfied presenting th appeal was section 249(2)
3.1 Before us, how brought to our atte
225/49/2021/ITA-II]
powers under Sectio light of the prevailin time limit for filing a the Act. The clause where the last dat provisions falls on or either within the tim
2021, whichever is under:
CIRCULAR NO. 8 OF 2
Maharashtriya
Sahakar
ITA ed that order was received on 22.03.2021
s required to file appeal within 30 days a 249(2) on receipt of order u/s 143(3). Ho s filed appeal after 30 days of the receip is clear that there is delay in filing of art.
is also noticed that the appellant in fo at there is no delay in filing of appeal w facts discussed in para 2, it is clear th g of appeal on appellant’s part. Since the ppeal and the appellant has not given any quested to condonation of the same, ther that the appellate had sufficient cau he appeal within the specified period. He not filed within prescribed time as prov
) of the IT Act, the same is not admitted.”
wever, learned counsel for the ention CBDT Circular No. 8 o
], dated 30.04.2021, issued n 119 of the Act. The said circ ng pandemic situation, inter ali appeals before the CIT(A) under (a) of the Circular specifically te for filing an appeal unde r after 1st April 2021, such app me prescribed under the Act o later. The relevant circular is 2021 [F. NO.225/49/2021/1T A-II], DA
Aikyavardhak Paraspar ri Mandal Patpedhi Ltd.
3
A No. 1668/MUM/2025
1 itself. The as provided owever, the ipt of order.
appeal on orm 35 has which is not hat there is ere is delay y reason for refore, I am use for not ence, since, vided in the ”
e assessee has of 2021 [F. No.
in exercise of cular, issued in ia, extended the r Chapter XX of y provides that er the relevant peal may be filed or by 31st May reproduced as TED 30-4-2021

In view of severe pandemic under section 119 of the Inc
Income-tax compliances by (a)
Appeal to Comm
1961 for which t thereafter, may b
May 2021, which (b)
Objections to D
Income-tax Act, 1
April 2021 or th
Section or by 31s
(c)
Income-tax retur
Act, 1961, for wh notice is 1st Apr under that notice
(d)
Filing of belated section (5) of Se
2020-21, which be filed on or bef
(e)
Payment of tax
194M of the Inco tax deducted, wh under Rule 30 of or before 31st Ma
(f)
Statement in For Form No. 60, wh be furnished on o
3.2 In the present
143(3) was admitted date for filing the 21.04.2021. Howeve above-referred circula up to 31.05.2021. T which is clearly with CBDT circular.
Maharashtriya
Sahakar
ITA c, the Central Board of Direct Taxes, in e come-tax Act, 1961, provides following re the taxpayers:
missioner (Appeals) under Chapter XX of the last date of filing under that Section be filed within the time provided under th hever is later; ispute Resolution Panel (DRP) under s
1961, for which the last date of filing und hereafter, may be filed within the time st May 2021, whichever is later; rn in response to notice under section 14
hich the last date of filing of return of in ril 2021 or thereafter, may be filed with e or by 31st May 2021, whichever is later d return under sub-section (4) and revise ection 139 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 f was required to be filed on or before 31
fore 31st May 2021; deducted under section 194-IA, Section me-tax Act, 1961 and filing of challan-cum hich are required to be paid and furnishe f the Income-tax Rules, 1962, may be pa ay 2021; rm No. 61, containing particulars of dec hich is due to be furnished on or before 3
or before 31st May 2021. t case, the assessment order ly served on 22.03.2021. Accor appeal under normal circu er, in view of the relaxation ar, the time for filing the appeal
The assessee filed the appeal hin the extended limitation pe
Aikyavardhak Paraspar ri Mandal Patpedhi Ltd.
4
A No. 1668/MUM/2025
exercise of its powers elaxation in respect of f the Income-tax Act, n is 1st April 2021 or hat Section or by 31st section 144C of the der that Section is 1st provided under that 48 of the Income-tax ncome under the said hin the time allowed r; ed return under sub- for Assessment Year st March 2021, may n 194-IB and Section m-statement for such d by 30th April 2021
aid and furnished on clarations received in 30th April 2021, may under Section rdingly, the due umstances was granted by the l stood extended on 27.05.2021, eriod as per the 3.3 In light of the ground of limitation impugned order, to th basis of delay, is acc the file of the learned having been filed wit merits in accordance is accordingly allowed
4. In the result, statistical purposes.
Order pronoun (RAHUL CHA
JUDICIAL M
Mumbai;
Dated: 30/07/2025
Rahul Sharma, Sr. P.S.

Copy of the Order forward
1. The Appellant
2. The Respondent.
3. CIT
4. DR, ITAT, Mumbai
5. Guard file.

////

Maharashtriya
Sahakar
ITA foregoing, the rejection of the by the learned CIT(A) is uns he extent it declines to admit th cordingly set aside. The matter d CIT(A) with a direction to adm thin limitation and to adjudica with law. The ground of appeal d.
the appeal of the assessee ced in the open Court on 30/0
-
S
AUDHARY)
(OM PRAK
MEMBER
ACCOUNTA ded to :

BY ORDER

(Assistant Re

ITAT, Mu

Aikyavardhak Paraspar ri Mandal Patpedhi Ltd.
5
A No. 1668/MUM/2025
e appeal on the ustainable. The he appeal on the is remanded to mit the appeal as ate the same on l of the assessee is allowed for 07/2025. d/-
KASH KANT)
ANT MEMBER
R, gistrar) umbai