Loading judgment…
Facts
The assessee's appeal to the CIT(A) was dismissed due to a 28-day delay. The core issue concerned the classification of a donation received by the assessee trust (general vs. corpus donation) under an intimation issued under Section 143(1) of the Income Tax Act.
Held
The Tribunal condoned the 28-day delay, relying on a Supreme Court judgment concerning Covid-19 related limitation period exclusions. It restored the matter to the Assessing Officer to verify if the donation was a general or corpus donation, clarifying that no addition should be made if it was a corpus donation.
Key Issues
Whether the delay in filing an appeal with CIT(A) should be condoned given the Supreme Court's directives on Covid-19 limitations, and whether the nature of the donation received by the assessee trust (general or corpus) requires re-examination by the Assessing Officer.
Sections Cited
143(1)
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “B” BENCH, KOLKATA
Before: SHRI GEORGE MATHAN & SHRI RAKESH MISHRA
O R D E R
Per George Mathan, JM :
This is an appeal filed by the revenue against the order of the ld. Addl/CIT(A)-7, Delhi, dated 14.07.2025 for the assessment year 2019-2020 2. It was submitted by the ld. AR that the appeal of the assessee has been dismissed by the ld.CIT(A) on account of delay of 28 days. In this regard, ld. AR drew our attention to the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Miscellaneous Application No.21 of 2022 in Suo Motu Writ Petition (C) No.3 of 2020, dated 10.01.2022, wherein the Hon’ble Supreme Court has directed to exclude the period of limitation for the period as mentioned in the said judgment on account of Covid-19. The relevant observations of the Hon’ble Supreme Court are as under :- 4. The present Miscellaneous Application has been filed by the Supreme Court Advocates-on-Record Association in the context of the spread of the new variant of the COVID-19 and the drastic surge in the number of COVID cases across the country. Considering the prevailing conditions, the applicants are seeking the following:
2 i. allow the present application by restoring the order dated 23.03.2020 passed by this Hon'ble Court in Suo Motu Writ Petition (C) NO. 3 of 2020; and ii. allow the present application by restoring the order dated 27.04.2021 passed by this Hon'ble Court in M.A. no. 665 of 2021 in Suo Motu Writ Petition (C) NO. 3 of 2020; and pass such other order or orders as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper.
Taking into consideration the arguments advanced by learned counsel and the impact of the surge of the virus on public health and adversities faced by litigants in the prevailing conditions, we deem it appropriate to dispose of the M.A. No. 21 of 2022 with the following directions: I. The order dated 23.03.2020 is restored and in continuation of the subsequent orders dated 08.03.2021, 27.04.2021 and 23.09.2021, it is directed that the period from 15.03.2020 till 28.02.2022 shall stand excluded for the purposes of limitation as may be prescribed under any general or special laws in respect of all judicial or quasi- judicial proceedings. II. Consequently, the balance period of limitation remaining as on 03.10.2021, if any, shall become available with effect from 01.03.2022. III. In cases where the limitation would have expired during the 15.03.2020 till 28.02.2022, period between notwithstanding the actual balance period of limitation remaining, all persons shall have a limitation period of 90 days from 01.03.2022. In the event the actual balance period of limitation remaining, with effect from 01.03.2022 is greater than 90 days, that longer period shall apply. IV. It is further clarified that the period from 15.03.2020 till 28.02.2022 shall also stand excluded in computing the periods prescribed under Sections 23 (4) and 29A of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, Section 12A of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015 and provisos (b) and (c) of Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 and any other laws, which prescribe period(s) of limitation for instituting proceedings, outer limits (within which the court or tribunal can condone delay) and termination of proceedings.
Thus, the ld. AR submitted that the delay of 28 days in filing the appeal before the ld.CIT(A) may kindly be condoned and the assessee may 3 kindly be given one more opportunity to represent its case before the Assessing Officer.
In reply, ld. Sr. DR did not object to condone the delay. Ld. Sr. DR also agreed that issue may be restored to the file of Assessing Officer for verification as to whether the claim of the assessee trust in respect of donation is general donation or corpus donation.
5. We have considered the rival submissions. A perusal of the order of the ld. CIT(A) shows that the appeal of the assessee has been dismissed on account of delay of 28 days. However, in view of the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court, referred to supra, we condone the delay of 28 days in filing the appeal by the assessee trust before the ld.CIT(A). In regard to claim of the assessee, as the issue is in regard to an intimation u/s.143(1) of the Act, the issue in this appeal is restored to the file of ld. Assessing Officer for verification as to whether the exemption claimed by the assessee trust in respect of donation is general donation or corpus donation. If it is corpus donation, then no addition shall be made.
In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes. Order dictated and pronounced in the open court on 24/11/2025. (RAKESH MISHRA) (GEORGE MATHAN) लेखा सदस्य/ ACCOUNTANT MEMBER न्यधनयक सदस्य / JUDICIAL MEMBER कोलकाता Kolkata; ददनाांक Dated 24/11/2025 Prakash Kumar Mishra, Sr.P.S.