RAKESH KUMAR DUGAR,CHENNAI vs. ITO, NCW03(1), CHENNAI

Rakesh Kumar Dugar, Income Tax Officer, New No.27, Poes Garden, Non-Corporate Ward-3(1), Gopalapuram S.O, Chennai Chennai- 600 086. [PAN: ADQPD6567Q] (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) अपीलार्थी की ओर से/ Assessee by : Mr. D.Anand, Advocate. प्रत्यर्थी की ओर से /Revenue by : Dr.I.Roopa, Addl, CIT सुिवाई की तारीख/Date of Hearing : 27.02.2025 घोर्णा की तारीख /Date of Pronouncement : 23.04.2025 आदेश / O R D E R PER AMITABH SHUKLA, A.M : This appeal is filed by the assessee against the order bearing DIN & Order No.ITBA/APL/S/250/2024-25/1070368119(1) dated 14.11.2024 of the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax [herein after “CIT(A), for the assessment year 2017-18. Through the aforesaid appeal the assessee has challenged order u/s 250 dated 14.11.2024 passed by Addl / JCIT(A)-7, Mumbai.

Page - 1 - of 5 2.0 Through its 12 grounds of appeal which have been found to be descriptive and narrative in nature, the assessee has in principle contested the order of Ld. First Appellate Authority in confirming the action of the CPC u/s 143(1). The Ld.Counsel for the assessee submitted that through its order dated 19.03.2019 CPC has made an addition of Rs. 1,65,77,555/-. It is the case of the assessee that it had filed its original return on 31.03.2018 declaring turnover of Rs.1,65,77,555/-. It was submitted that assessee had shown profit of Rs.10,40,418 u/s 44AD on the said turnover of Rs.1,65,77,555/-. The CPC instead considered turnover of Rs.1,65,77,555/- as income and raised a demand of Rs.77,51,300/-. The Ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted that upon realizing that it had inadvertently mentioned in the return sale amount of Rs. 1,65,77,555/- in the regular P&L category instead of no book case P&L, it filed a rectification return on 04.03.2022. The mistake was admittedly, though inadvertently, committed by the assessee. 3.0 The Ld.Counsel further submitted that it was under presumption that its rectification return on 04.03.2022 had been accepted. However, upon initiation of recovery proceedings by the department, it learnt otherwise. Consequently, it proceeded to file an appeal on 04.07.2024 before the Ld.First Appellate Authority. The Ld. Counsel for the assessee drew our attention to para 5 and 6 from pages 6 to 9 of the Page - 2 - of 5. Ld. CIT(A) has proceeded to dismiss the appeal holding that assessee did not have any justified ground for the nearly five years delay in filing of appeal. The Ld. Counsel submitted that in para 6 of his order Ld. Additional CIT(A) has made an incorrect factual finding that the assessee had received the impugned order u/s 143(1) dated 19.03.2019 on the same day. It is the case of the assessee that the same is an erroneous finding since till date the assessee has not been able to download the impugned order u/s 143(1) dated 19.03.2019. In support of its contentions, the Ld. Counsel for the assessee has placed reliance upon judicial pronouncements made by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Kalyankumar Ray 191 ITR 0634. It was accordingly requested that the matter be set aside to the Ld. Additional CIT(A) for readjudication. The Ld.DR argued that the assessee has committed the mistake, in the first place of filing a wrong return and hence does not deserve for any benefit. 4.0 We have heard rival submissions in the light of material available on records. We have noted that the principal controversy in the matter is non-condonation of delay in filing appeal before him by the Ld. Addl.CIT(A) on the observation that order u/s 143(1) dated 19.03.2019 was received by the assessee on the same day. We have also noted that the assessee has emphatically submitted that it had not received the order u/s 143(1) and that even on the date of this hearing, the order was Page - 3 - of 5 still non-downloadable. In support of its contentions, the assessee has placed necessary documents in its paper book. We are therefore of the considered that the assessee has justified grounds for the delay in filing the appeal before the Ld.First Appellate Authority. We do not find any force in the argument of Ld.DR that the assessee should be penalized for the mistake committed while filing the return of income. It is trite law that the substance must always prevail over form. The mistake committed by the assessee while filing its return of income falls in the category of an inadvertent mistake, as no taxpayer would like to do something which adversely impacts its own interest. Be that as it may be, we are of the view that ends of justice would be met if the case is set aside to the file of the Ld. CIT(A) for readjudication after giving opportunities of being heard to the assesse and to pass a speaking order. While doing so he will download, if required, the impugned order u/s 143(1) for the convenience of the assessee. The assesse shall be bound to comply to all the notices and details called by the Ld. CIT(A). Any non-compliance from the assesse side shall be adversely viewed. Accordingly, we set aside the order of the Ld. First Appellate Authority and direct him to readjudicate the matter de novo. Accordingly, the grounds of appeal raised by the assesse are allowed for statistical purposes.