SUDHA PILLAI,THANE vs. NATIONAL FACELESS ASSESSMENT CENTRE , DELHI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 6104/MUM/2024Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai05 March 2025AY 2013-14Bench: HON’BLE BR BASKARAN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER HON'BLE SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN (Judicial Member)4 pages

In favour of the assessee: the assessee's appeal was allowed. From the AI summary of this appeal.

AI SummaryAllowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal held that the appeal was filed within the extended limitation period granted by the Hon'ble Supreme Court. The delay in filing the appeal before the CIT(A) was condoned, and the matter was restored to the CIT(A) for adjudication on merits.

What were the facts?

The assessee filed an appeal before the CIT(A) challenging an order passed by the AO. The CIT(A) rejected the appeal solely on the grounds of being time-barred. The assessee contended that the delay was condonable in light of the Supreme Court's suo-moto writ petition order extending limitation periods.

What were the issues?

Whether the appeal filed before the CIT(A) was within the period of limitation, considering the extension granted by the Hon'ble Supreme Court due to the pandemic.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 250

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “B” BENCH MUMBAI

Before: HON’BLE BR BASKARANHON’BLE SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN

For Appellant: Shri Tanmay Milind Phadke
For Respondent: Shri Leyaqat Ali Aafaqui, Sr. DR
Hearing: 04.03.2025Pronounced: 05.03.2025

Date of Hearing 04.03.2025 Date of Pronouncement 05.03.2025 आदेश / ORDER

PER SANDEEP GOSAIN, JM:

1.

The present appeal has been filed by the assessee challenging the impugned order 06.03.2024 passed u/s 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (‘the Act’), by the National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi / CIT(A) for the assessment year 2013-14. 2 Sudha Pillai

2.

At the very outset, we noticed that Ld. CIT(A) rejected the appeal filed by the assessee by holding that the same is not within limitation.

3.

On this aspect, we have heard counsels for both the parties and perused the material placed on record, and the orders passed by the revenue authorities. After having gone through the facts of the case we noticed that assessee has taken a specific stand that appeal filed by him before Ld. CIT(A) was not barred by limitation in the light of decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in Suo-moto writ petition (c) No. 3 of2020, dated 10.01.2022. In the said decision, the limitation was extended till 30.05.2022 for all cases, wherein it ended / expired under the statue between 15.03.2020 till 28.02.2022. Since the penalty order in the present case was passed on 17.01.2022 and limitation for filing appeal under the Income Tax Act, had expired on 16.02.2022 (i.e between 15.03.2020 till 28.02.2022), therefore the appeal filed on 25.05.2022 was within limitation without any delay.

4.

Whereas on the contrary, Ld. DR while relying upon the orders passed by Ld. CIT(A) submitted that assessee did not appeared before the Ld. CIT(A) and has not filed any submissions in this regard. Therefore appeal was rightly rejected.

3 Sudha Pillai

5.

Having gone through the facts of the present case and hearing the parties at length, we noticed that the appeal of the assessee was dismissed only on the sole ground that the same was not filed within limitation. However, we noticed that the order of penalty passed by the AO was dated 17.01.2022 and the limitation under the income tax Act for filing the appeal before the Ld. CIT(A) was up to 16.02.2022 but the same was filed on 30.05.2022. However, Hon’ble Apex Court in suomoto writ petition (supra) had extended the limitation till 30.05.2022 for all cases, wherein the limitation had expired under the statue between 15.03.2020 till 28.02.2022. therefore considering the date of order of penalty and filing of appeal before Ld. CIT(A) and the order passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case referred above, we are inclined to condone the delay in filing of first appeal before Ld. CIT(A). Hence, considering our above decision, we restore the matter back to the file of CIT(A) with a direction to decide the same on merits.

6.

Before parting, we make it clear that our decision to restore the matter back to the file of the Ld. CIT(A) shall in no way be construed as having any reflection or expression on the merits of the dispute which shall be adjudicated by the Ld.CIT(A) independently in accordance with law.

4 Sudha Pillai

7.

In the result the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes.

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →