Loading judgment…
Facts
The assessee's appeals are against the orders of the CIT(A) which dismissed the appeals on account of delay without deciding the merits. The assessee cited reasons like the pandemic, personal health issues, and technical difficulties for the delay.
Held
The Tribunal held that the assessee had sufficient cause for the delay in filing the appeal before the CIT(A) and that the appeal ought to have been decided on merits. The Tribunal condoned the delay and restored the appeals to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication.
Key Issues
Whether the delay in filing the appeal before the CIT(A) was justifiable, and if so, whether the appeal should be decided on merits.
Sections Cited
143(1), 143(3), 250
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, KOLKATA ‘D’ BENCH, KOLKATA
Before: SHRI GEORGE MATHAN & SHRI RAKESH MISHRA
Department represented by : Smt. Madhumita Das, Addl. CIT, Sr. DR. Date of concluding the hearing : 07-August-2025 Date of pronouncing the order : 12-September-2025 ORDER PER RAKESH MISHRA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER: Both these appeals filed by the assessee are against the separate orders of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-NFAC, Delhi [hereinafter referred to as Ld. 'CIT(A)'] passed u/s 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) for AYs 2018-19 and 2019- 20 dated 14.02.2025, which have been passed against the intimation
That the Appellant craves leave to alter/amend/rescind/ the aforesaid grounds or prefer addition grounds during the course of the Appeal or before.” II. ITA No.: 1236/KOL/2025: “1. That on the facts and on the circumstances of the case the order dated 14 February. 2025, passed by the ADDL/JCIT(A)-4, Mumbai is illegal, abinitio void and bad in law and the same is liable to be cancelled/set aside/quashed.
That on the facts and on the circumstances of the case, the ADDL/ICIT(A)- 4, Mumbai had grossly erred in not condoning the delay in filing of the Appeal without appreciating that the Appellant had "sufficient cause" for such delay and also not deciding the Appeal on merits.
That on the facts and on the circumstances of the case, the ADDL/JCIT(A)- 4, Mumbai. had failed to appreciate/understand that the amendment to sub clause (iv) of clause (a) to section 143(1) was brought into the statute with effect from Assessment Year 2021-22 and the same could not have been invoked for the Assessment Year under Appeal that is Assessment year 2019-20
4. That on the facts and on the circumstances of the case, the ADDL/ICIT(A)- 4, Mumbai had failed to understand/appreciate that no adjustments in an intimation passed under section 143(1)(a) is permissible when such adjustments involve a debatable issue on which more than one views are possible.
That on the facts and on the circumstances of the case, the ADDL/ICIT(A)- 4, Mumbai had failed to understand/appreciate that a wrong qualification in the Tax Audit Report, through inadvertence by the Tax Auditor could be a ground for addition when there is no such expenses claimed in the audited Profit & Loss Account.
Without prejudice to the aforesaid grounds and that on the facts and on the circumstances of the case, the ADDL/ICIT(A)-4, Mumbai had failed to appreciate that the Qualification in the Tax Audit Report was in respect of the then provisions of VAT. where there was no requirement to charge VAT
3. We shall 1st take up the appeal for the assessment year 2018-19. Brief facts of the case are that the assessee had filed the return of income for the assessment year 2018-19 on 30/10/2018 declaring total income of ₹ 99,44,310/- which was processed under section 143(3) of the Act and an intimation with total income of ₹ 1,66,78,010/- was issued on 13/12/2019, wherein adjustment of ₹ 67,33,700 has been made. Aggrieved with this intimation, the assessee filed an appeal before the Ld. CIT(A) who dismissed the appeal on account of delay without discussing the merits of the case. Aggrieved with the order of the Ld. CIT(A), the assessee has filed the appeal before the Tribunal.
We have heard the rival contentions and perused the material available on record. It was submitted by the Ld. AR that the assessee is 73 years old and was suffering from COVID-19 pandemic and his wife had also expired. An affidavit justifying the delay before the Ld. CIT(A) has also been filed in both the years, which is as under: “I SUJOY KRISHNA JANA son of Amulya Ratan Jana residing at Jasora, P.O- Jasora, P.S- Panskura Dist- Purba Medinipur, Pin-721641 (hereinafter referred to as "the Appellant"), do hereby solemnly affirm that-
1. 1. That, the Appellant had preferred an Appeal before the Hon'ble Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Kolkata in 2. That the Appeal is for Assessment Year 2018-19 and the Appeal is against an order passed under section 250 of the Act, by the AddI/JCIT (A) -4, Mumbai, dated 14th February, 2025.
3. That, there was a delay of 972 days in filing of the Appeal before the AddI/JCIT (A) 4. Mumbai, which had not been condoned and the Appeal has