ARUNASALAM JEYAKUMAR,BENGALURU vs. THE ASSISTANT DIRECTOR OF INCOME-TAX, CPC, BENGALURU

Brief facts of the case are that the assessee was employed with Patni Computer Systems Limited till 10.11.2011. Contributions to IT(IT)A No.139/Bang/2022 Page 2 of 5 Employees Provident Fund (EPF) were made from 20.02.2009 to 10.11.2011. The actual service period for contribution of EPF was 2 years and 8 months. The assessee withdrew the balance of Rs.1,62,21,837/- from his EPF account accumulated on account of his employment with Patni Computer Systems Ltd. on 11.08.2016. This included his own (employee's) contribution of Rs.58,06,092 which the assessee did not offer to tax. By an intimation u/s.143(1) dated 27.03.2019, addition to the extent of assessee’s contribution of Rs.58,06,092 and also for a sum of Rs.23,07,667 appearing in 26As and not in EPFO subscriber ledger card was made. The assessee filed rectification application with the AO for deletion of the aforesaid additions whereby the AO confirmed the additions.

Aggrieved, assessee preferred an appeal before the CIT(A) where the assessee contented the issue pertaining to the addition of employee’s contribution of Rs.58,06,092 . There was a delay of 131 days in the appeal filed before the CIT(A) i.e. from 21.11.2020 to 01.04.2021. The assessee has filed condonation petition in this regard and the same was not accepted by the CIT(A). The CIT(A) dismissed the appeal without hearing the appeal on merit. Aggrieved by the order of the CIT(A), the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal.

The Ld AR submitted that the delay is covered by the Cognizance for Limitation (2020) 117 taxmann.com 66 (SC) dated 23.03.2020, where the Hon'ble Supreme Court has suo moto extended

We have considered this matter and have taken the materials on record. The Hon’ble Supreme Court suo moto writ petition No.03/2020 along with M.P 21/2022 has held that the period from 15/3/2020 till 28/02/2022 shall stand excluded for the purpose of period of limitation as may be prescribed under any general or special laws in respect of quasi judicial and judicial proceedings. The period of delay (from 21.11.2020 to 01.04.2021) in assessee’s case is covered by the exclusion of period of limitation as per the order of the Hon’ble Supreme Court. Hence we hold that there is no delay to be condoned in filing the appeal before the CIT(A) and refusal of the CIT(A) to condone the delay and reject the appeal of the assessee is not justified. The appeal filed before the CIT(A) is deemed to be filed in time as per the directions of the Hon’ble Supreme Court referred above.

We notice that the CIT(A) has rejected the appeal of the assessee on the basis that there is a delay in filing and has not gone into the merits of the appeal filed by the assessee. Hence we remit back the file to the CIT(A) who is directed to admit the appeal in the light of the directions of the Hon’ble Supreme Court and decide the appeal based on merits after giving proper opportunity of being heard to the assessee.

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes.