N KUMAR SWAMY(HUF),BANGALORE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-(3)(1), BANGALORE

We have heard the submissions of the learned AR and the learned DR. We have also gone through the affidavit explaining the delay in filing the appeal by the assessee and the supporting documents.

The assessee HUF filed its return of income for A.Y. 2015-16 declaring interest income from fixed deposits. The TDS, however, was deducted under the individual PAN instead of the HUF PAN. This mistake resulted in denial of TDS credit by CPC while issuing intimation under section 143(1) of the Act. The assessee filed a rectification petition under section 154 of the Act. However, the rectification order dated 16- 12-2019 repeated the same mistake. Since the error continued, the assessee had no alternate remedy except to approach the appellate authority. Therefore, the appeal was filed before the learned CIT(A). However, in this process, there is a delay of 973 days in filing the appeal before the ld. CIT-A. The explanation given is that the assessee was under a bona fide belief that the mistake would be corrected in section 154 of the Act proceedings. Since rectification was not granted, the appeal was filed immediately after passing of the order under section 154 of the Act. Thus, the delay was not deliberate or intentional but caused by reasons beyond the assessee’s control.