Loading judgment…
Facts
The assessee's appeals for multiple assessment years were dismissed by the CIT(A) due to delay. The assessee contended that the delay was caused because they were pursuing an alternative remedy, specifically a rectification application under Section 154 of the Income Tax Act before the Assessing Officer, which remained undisposed.
Held
The Tribunal found that pursuing an alternative remedy (rectification under Section 154) which was not disposed of by the AO constituted a reasonable cause for the delay. Consequently, the delay in filing the appeals before the CIT(A) was condoned, and the matters were restored to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication on merits after granting the assessee adequate opportunity.
Key Issues
Whether the delay in filing appeals before the CIT(A) should be condoned when the assessee was genuinely pursuing an alternative remedy like rectification under Section 154 before the Assessing Officer, and that application remained undisposed.
Sections Cited
154, 143(1)
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “SMC” BENCH KOLKATA
Before: SHRI GEORGE MATHAN
O R D E R These are the appeals filed by the assessee against the separate orders of the ld. Addl.JCIT(A)-2, Jaipur, dated 26.03.2025 for the Assessment Year 2019-2020, 2020-2021, 2021-2022 & 2022-2023, respectively.
Shri Sunil Surana, ld.AR appeared on behalf of the assessee and Shri Shankar Naskar, ld. Sr.DR appeared on behalf of the revenue.
During the course of hearing, it was submitted by the ld. AR that the ld. CIT(A) has dismissed the appeals of the assessee without condoning the delay. It was the submission that the assessee was pursuing alternative remedy by filing rectification application u/s.154 of the Act before the AO and the same has not been disposed off by the ld.AO, therefore, the assessee could not file the appeals before the ld. CIT(A) within the prescribed time limit. It was the submission that during the pendency of the rectification application the assessee opted to file appeals against the 2 intimation issued u/s.143(1) of the Act before the ld.CIT(A). It was submitted that the delay may kindly be condoned and the assessee may kindly be given one more opportunity to substantiate his case before the ld.CIT(A).
In reply, ld Sr. DR vehemently supported the orders of the Assessing Officer and ld. CIT(A).
I have considered the rival submissions. A perusal of the impugned order shows that the ld.CIT(A) has dismissed the appeals of the assessee on account of delay. A further perusal of the order of the ld.CIT(A), shows that the assessee has explained before the ld.CIT(A) with reasons for delay. It is noticed that the assessee has opted alternative remedy in the form of application u/s.154 of the Act and the same has not been disposed off by the Assessing Officer, which is a reasonable cause for delay in filing the appeals before the ld. CIT(A). Accordingly, the delay in filing the appeals before the ld.CIT(A) is condoned and so as to grant the assessee one more opportunity to substantiate its case, the issues in this appeals are restored to the file of the ld. CIT(A) for readjudication afresh on merits after granting the assessee adequate opportunity of being heard.
In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes. Order dictated and pronounced in the open court on 23/07/2025. (जाजज माथन) (GEORGE MATHAN) न्यानयक सदस्य / JUDICIAL MEMBER कोलकाता Kolkata; ददनाांक Dated 23/07/2025 Prakash Kumar Mishra, Sr.P.S.