Loading judgment…
Facts
The assessee preferred an appeal for AY 2017-18 against the order of the CIT(A) who dismissed the appeal by declining to condone a delay of 78 days. The delay was attributed to the COVID Pandemic.
Held
The Tribunal held that the delay in filing the appeal was covered by the Supreme Court's decision extending limitation periods due to the pandemic. Therefore, the CIT(A) ought to have condoned the delay. The impugned order was set aside.
Key Issues
Whether the CIT(A) erred in not condoning the delay in filing the appeal, especially considering the pandemic period and Supreme Court directives.
Sections Cited
271AAC(1)
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, HYDERABAD BENCHES “SMC-B”, HYDERABAD
Before: SHRI MANJUNATHA. G & SHRI K.NARASIMHA CHARY
आदेश / ORDER PER K. NARASIMHA CHARY, J.M: Aggrieved by the order dated 07/11/2024 passed by the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-10, Hyderabad (“Ld. CIT(A)”), in the case of Badar Fa�ma (“the assessee”), assessee preferred this appeal for the AY 2017-18. 2. At the outset, Learned AR submi�ed that learned CIT(A) dismissed the appeal by declining to condone the delay of 78 days in filing the appeal, but as a ma�er of fact the penalty U/s. 271AAC(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (“the Act”) was levied by order dated 31/12/2021 and the appeal was filed on 19/4/2022, the period covered by the COVID Pandemic. He referred to the order of the Hon'ble Supreme Court extending the periods of limita�on and submi�ed that in the light of such orders there is no delay at all. Apart from this, he further submi�ed that the quantum appeal in was remanded to the file of the learned CIT(A) by order dated 4/11/2024.
Learned DR vehemently relied on the orders of the Authori�es below.
We have gone through the record in the light of the submissions made on either side. It could be seen from the record that there was a delay of 78 days in preferring appeal before the learned CIT(A) and the reason for the delay in filing the appeal was a�ributed to the pandemic. As a ma�er of fact, though the learned DR does not concede to condone the delay, there is no denial of the fact that the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the Suo Motu proceedings in the case of M.A.No. 21/2022 in M.A.No. 665/2021 in SMW(C) No.3 of 2020 by order dated 10/01/2022 held that in cases, where the limita�on would have expired during the period between 15/03/2020 and 28/02/2022, notwithstanding the actual balance period of limita�on remaining, all persons shall have a limita�on period of 90 days from 01/03/2022, and in the event of actual balance period of limita�on remaining with effect from 01/03/2022 is greater than 90 days, that longer period shall apply. The limita�on period applicable to the appeal before the learned CIT(A), in fact, was covered by the above decision and, therefore, learned CIT(A) ought to have condoned the delay. Further, as could be seen from the order dated 4/11/2024 in the quantum appeal preferred by the assessee, the quantum addi�on order was set-aside a�er condoning the delay and the issue was restored to the file of the learned CIT(A) for disposal on merits.
Page 2 of 4 In these circumstances, we set-aside the impugned order and restore the appeal to the file of the learned CIT(A) to dispose it of along with the quantum appeal. Grounds are answered accordingly. 5. In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed for sta�s�cal purposes. Order pronounced in the open court on the 23rd January, 2025.