Loading judgment…
Facts
The assessee filed an appeal against an assessment order, which the CIT(A) dismissed due to a 40-day delay in filing. The assessee contended it was their first time filing online and referred to a CBDT circular extending the e-filing deadline.
Held
The Tribunal noted that the CIT(A) provided detailed reasons for not condoning the delay and the assessee failed to furnish any reasons for the delay before the Tribunal. Consequently, the Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s order.
Key Issues
Whether the CIT(A) was justified in dismissing the assessee's appeal due to a delay in filing, considering the explanation offered regarding first-time online filing and a relevant CBDT circular extending e-filing dates.
Sections Cited
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “A” 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 assessee against the order passed by the ld.CIT(A), National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi, dated 11.06.2025 for the assessment year 2013-2014.
Shri Siddarth Jhajharia, ld. AR appeared on behalf of the assessee and Ms. Archana Gupta, Sr.DR appeared on behalf of the revenue.
It was submitted by the ld. AR that the ld.CIT(A) has dismissed the appeal of the assessee for delay of 40 days. It was the submission that the assessment order dated 22.03.2016 was served on the assessee on 07.04.2016. It was the submission that the appeal before the ld.CIT(A) was been filed on 15.06.2016. It was submitted that this was the first year in which appeal was being filed through online. It was the submission that the CBDT has also issued Circular No.20/2016, dated 26th May, 2016, wherein it states as under :-
2 ITANo.1460/Kol/2025
It was the prayer that the issues in this appeal may be restored to the file of ld.CIT(A) for readjudication and to hold that there was no delay in filing the appeal.
3 ITANo.1460/Kol/2025 5. In reply, ld.Sr. DR submitted that the ld. CIT(A) has categorically mentioned that the appeal was due to be filed on 06.05.2016 and the appeal has been filed only on 15.06.2016 and there was a delay of 40 days. It was further submitted that the reason for the delay has not been provided. It was further submitted that the order of the ld.CIT(A) is liable to be upheld.
We have considered the rival submissions. A perusal of the order of the ld.CIT(A) shows that the ld.CIT(A) has given detailed reasons for not condoning the delay and also no reasons have been provided by the assessee in regard to condonation of delay. This being so, we find no reason to interfere in the order of the ld.CIT(A) and we uphold the same. Consequently, appeal of the assessee is dismissed.
In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed. Order dictated and pronounced in the open court on 09/09/2025.