Loading judgment…
No AI summary yet for this case.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, C BENCH, MUMBAI
IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL "C" BENCH, MUMBAI SHRI B.R. BASKARAN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER SHRI RAHUL CHAUDHARY, JUDICIAL MEMBER (ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2018-19) Indoco Remedies Limited 166, Indoco House, C.S.T Road Santacruz (East), Mumbai-400098 ……………… Appellant [PAN:AAACI0380C] Vs ACIT, Central Circle-6(1) Post Bag No.2 Electronic City Post Office, Bangalore- 560500 ……………. Respondent Appearances For the Appellant/Assessee : Mr. Madhur Agarwal For the Respondent/Department : Mr. Sandeep Raj Date of conclusion of hearing : 08.09.2022 Date of pronouncement of order : 29.11.2022
O R D E R Per Rahul Chaudhary, Judicial Member: 1. By way of the present appeal the Appellant/Assessee has challenged the order, dated 22.12.2021, passed by the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi [hereinafter referred to as ‘the CIT(A)’] for the Assessment Year 2018- 19 whereby the Ld. CIT(A) had dismissed the appeal filed by the Appellant against the Assessment Order, dated 15.04.2021 passed under Section 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’).
Brief facts case are that assessment was framed on the Appellant under Section 143(3) of the Act vide Assessment Order, dated 15.04.2021 at total income of INR.73,01,06,689/-. Being aggrieved by ITA.No.1698/MUM/2022 Assessment Year.2018-19 Indoco Remidies Limited the Appellant filed appeal before CIT(A) which was disposed off vide order, dated 22.12.2021, without disposing off any of the grounds raised in the Appeal. Copy of the order passed by the CIT(A) was received by the Appellant on 22.12.2021. The Appellant had time till 19.02.2022 to file appeal against the aforesaid order of the CIT(A). Meanwhile, the Central Board of Direct Taxes (CBDT) notified the Faceless Appeal Scheme on 28.12.2021 (vide Notification No.139/2021). This scheme permitted filling of rectification application. Since the error in the order of the CIT(A) was apparent from record, the Appellant decided to file the rectification application as per the said scheme. However, the functionality for online filing of rectification application was not made available on the portal. On account of the aforesaid facts and circumstances the Appellant could not file the rectification application and the time to file appeal before the Tribunal also lapsed. The Appellant was advised to prefer appeal before the Tribunal. Thus, the present appeal came to be filed by the Appellant against the said order passed by the CIT(A) along with application for condonation of delay of 130 days in the instituting of the appeal.
When the matter was taken up for hearing the Learned Authorised Representative for Appellant pointed out the above facts and requested for condonation of delay in filing appeal. He further submitted that since none of the grounds raised in appeal have been adjudicated, all the issues be restored to the file of CIT(A) for adjudication afresh. In response to query from the Bench, the Learned Departmental Representative also fairly accepted that in the appellate order passed, the CIT(A) has adjudicated upon grounds other than those raised by the Appellant before CIT(A).
ITA.No.1698/MUM/2022 Assessment Year.2018-19 Indoco Remidies Limited 4. We have considered the application seeking condonation of delay and are of the view that the Appellant had reasonable cause for delay which has been explained sufficiently. Accordingly, for the reasons for delay specified in the aforesaid application for seeking condonation of delay (summarized in paragraph 2 above), the delay of 130 days in filing the appeal is condoned. Since none of the grounds raised by the Appellant were adjudicated by the CIT(A), the order passed by the CIT(A) is set aside and all the issues raised in the present appeal are restored to the file of CIT(A) for fresh adjudication as per law.
In result the present appeal is allowed.
Order pronounced on 29.11.2022.