VIBBY GOTTEMUKKALA,HYDERABAD vs. ADIT(INT TAXN)-1, HYDERABAD
आयकर अपीलȣय अͬधकरण, हैदराबाद पीठ मɅ
IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL
HYDERABAD BENCHES “B”, HYDERABAD
BEFORE
SHRI G. MANJUNATHA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER
&
SHRI K.NARASIMHA CHARY, JUDICIAL MEMBER
आ.अपी.सं / ITA No. 710/Hyd/2024
(Ǔनधा[रण वष[ / Assessment Year: 2022-23)
Vibby Gottemukkala,
Hyderabad.
[PAN : AEJPG9151K]
Vs.
ADIT (Int. Taxn)-1,
Hyderabad.
अपीलाथȸ / Appellant
Ĥ× यथȸ / Respondent
Ǔनधा[ǐरती ɮवारा/Assessee by:
Shri P. Murali Mohan Rao, AR
राजè व ɮवारा/Revenue by:
Shri R. Kumaran, Sr. AR
सुनवाई कȧ तारȣख/Date of hearing:
19/12/2024
घोषणा कȧ तारȣख/Pronouncement on:
17/01/2025
आदेश / ORDER
PER K. NARASIMHA CHARY, J.M:
Aggrieved by the final assessment order dated 30/05/2024 passed by the learned AddiƟonal Director of Income Tax (InternaƟonal TaxaƟon)-1,
Hyderabad (“Ld. AO”), in the case of Vibby GoƩemukkala (“the assessee”), assessee preferred this appeal.
2. At the outset, learned Authorized RepresentaƟve (“learned AR”) submiƩed that the draŌ assessment order was received by the assessee on 12/3/2024, therefore, the due date for filing the objecƟons before the Vibby GoƩemukkala
Page 2 of 5
learned Dispute ResoluƟon Panel, Bengaluru (“learned DRP”) was 11/4/2024, but since the last date, namely, 11/4/2024 happened to be a Public Holiday for the Central Government Offices, being the fesƟval day of Id-ul-Fitr, the assessee sent an email on 11/4/2024 and filed the physical copy on 12/4/2024, but the learned AO held that there is no provision in the Act for the learned DRP to condone the delay and therefore, while holding that the assessee did not adhere to the requisiƟons as per Rule
4(3) and declined to admit the objecƟons and rejected the same.
3. Learned AR placed reliance on a decision of the juri icƟonal High
Court in the case of M/s. Rain Cement Ltd vs. DCIT (2016) 75 Taxmann.com
113 (AP & T) wherein also there was only one day delay in filing the objecƟons before the learned DRP and the Hon’ble High Court has remanded the issue to the file of the learned DRP for consideraƟon on merits. He further submiƩed that this decision of the Hon’ble juri icƟonal
High Court in the case of M/s. Rain Cement Ltd (supra) is followed by the Cochin Bench of Tribunal in the case of US Technology InternaƟonal (P.) Ltd vs. DCIT (2018) 94 Taxmann.com 248 (Cochin – Trib).
4. Per contra, learned Departmental RepresentaƟve (“learned DR”) submiƩed that as rightly observed by the learned DRP, there is no provision in the Act for the learned DRP to condone the delay, and therefore, the learned DRP has nothing to do than rejecƟng the objecƟons.
5. We have gone through the record in the light of the submissions made on either side. Facts are simple and admiƩed. There is no dispute that the assessee received the draŌ assessment order on 12/3/2024 and therefore, the due date for filing the objecƟons was 11/4/2024. On verificaƟon, we found that 11/4/2024 was a fesƟve day of Id-ul-Fitr and a Public Holiday for the Government Offices. Further, there is no denial of the fact stated on behalf of the assessee that, on 11/4/2024 the assessee sent the appeal by way of an email, and on 12/4/2024 a physical copy was also submiƩed. Learned DRP recorded in the order that Form-35A was filed on 12/4/2024. ContenƟon of the learned DRP, however, was that there is no provision in the Act for the learned DRP to condone the delay and therefore, learned DRP cannot condone even one day’s delay.
Vibby GoƩemukkala
Page 3 of 5
Precisely this is the reason for rejecƟng the objecƟons filed by the assessee.
6. It is not in dispute that 11/4/2024 was a fesƟve day of Id-ul-Fitr and was a Public Holiday to the Central Government Offices. Such circumstances are taken care by secƟon 10 of the General Clause Act,
1897, which reads as under: –
“10. Computation of time.—(1) Where, by any 1[Central Act] or Regulation made after the commencement of this Act, any act or proceeding is directed or allowed to be done or taken in any Court or office on a certain day or within a prescribed period, then, if the Court or office is closed on that day or the last day of the prescribed period, the act or proceeding shall be considered as done or taken in due time if it is done or taken on the next day afterwards on which the Court or office is open:
Provided that nothing in this section shall apply to any act or proceeding to which the Indian Limitation Act, 1877 (15 of 1877), applies.
(2) This section applies also to all 2[Central Acts] and Regulations made on or after the fourteenth day of January, 1887.”
For that matter, section 4 of the Limitation Act, 1963 reads that where the prescribed period for any suit, appeal or application expires on a day when the court is closed, the suit, appeal or application may be instituted, preferred or made on the day when the court re-opens, and by way of explanation it was further provided that a court shall be deemed to be closed on any day within the meaning of this section if during any part of its normal working hours it remains closed on that day.
Apart from this, it is held by the Hon’ble juri ictional High Court in the case of M/s. Rain Cement Ltd (supra) followed by the Cochin Bench of the Tribunal in the case of US Technology International (supra), one-day delay in filing the objections was to be condoned and the matter has to be decided on merits.
We, therefore, taking note of the provisions in section 10 of the General Clauses Act, 1897 and also section 4 of the Limitation Act, 1963 hold that there is no delay in this matter, and even if it should be construed that there is one-day delay in filing the objections, in the light of Vibby GoƩemukkala Page 4 of 5
the view taken in the case of the M/s. Rain Cement Limited (supra) and US
Technologies International (P.) Ltd (supra) holds that such one-day delay in preferring the objections has to be condone.
With this view of the matter, we set aside the impugned order and restored the issue to the file of the learned DRP to decide the matter on merits according to law. Grounds of appeal are answered accordingly.
In the result, appeal of the assessee is treated as allowed for statistical purpose. Order pronounced in the open court on this the 17th January, 2025. (G. MANJUNATHA) JUDICIAL MEMBER
Hyderabad, Dated:17/01/2025. OKK
Vibby GoƩemukkala
Page 5 of 5