Loading judgment…
Facts
The assessee received a draft assessment order, and the due date for filing objections with the Dispute Resolution Panel (DRP), April 11, 2024, fell on a public holiday (Id-ul-Fitr). The assessee filed objections by email on the due date and physically the following day. The DRP rejected the objections, asserting no statutory provision existed to condone the one-day delay.
Held
The Tribunal, referencing Section 10 of the General Clauses Act, 1897, and Section 4 of the Limitation Act, 1963, along with judicial precedents, ruled that no actual delay occurred as the last day was a public holiday. It further held that even if a delay was construed, a one-day delay should be condoned. Consequently, the Tribunal set aside the DRP's order and remanded the matter back for a decision on merits.
Key Issues
Whether the Dispute Resolution Panel (DRP) has the power to condone a one-day delay in filing objections, especially when the last date for submission was a public holiday, considering the provisions of the General Clauses Act, 1897 and the Limitation Act, 1963.
Sections Cited
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, HYDERABAD BENCHES “B”, HYDERABAD
Before: SHRI G. MANJUNATHA & SHRI K.NARASIMHA CHARY
आदेश / ORDER PER K. NARASIMHA CHARY, J.M: Aggrieved by the final assessment order dated 30/05/2024 passed by the learned Addi�onal Director of Income Tax (Interna�onal Taxa�on)-1, Hyderabad (“Ld. AO”), in the case of Vibby Go�emukkala (“the assessee”), assessee preferred this appeal. 2. At the outset, learned Authorized Representa�ve (“learned AR”) submi�ed that the dra� assessment order was received by the assessee on 12/3/2024, therefore, the due date for filing the objec�ons before the Vibby Go�emukkala learned Dispute Resolu�on 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 fes�val 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 requisi�ons as per Rule 4(3) and declined to admit the objec�ons and rejected the same.
Learned AR placed reliance on a decision of the jurisdic�onal 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 objec�ons before the learned DRP and the Hon’ble High Court has remanded the issue to the file of the learned DRP for considera�on on merits. He further submi�ed that this decision of the Hon’ble jurisdic�onal 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 Interna�onal (P.) Ltd vs. DCIT (2018) 94 Taxmann.com 248 (Cochin – Trib).
Per contra, learned Departmental Representa�ve (“learned DR”) submi�ed 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 rejec�ng the objec�ons.
We have gone through the record in the light of the submissions made on either side. Facts are simple and admi�ed. There is no dispute that the assessee received the dra� assessment order on 12/3/2024 and therefore, the due date for filing the objec�ons was 11/4/2024. On verifica�on, we found that 11/4/2024 was a fes�ve 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 submi�ed. Learned DRP recorded in the order that Form-35A was filed on 12/4/2024. Conten�on 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.
Page 2 of 5 Vibby Go�emukkala Precisely this is the reason for rejec�ng the objec�ons filed by the assessee.
It is not in dispute that 11/4/2024 was a fes�ve day of Id-ul-Fitr and was a Public Holiday to the Central Government Offices. Such circumstances are taken care by sec�on 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 jurisdictional 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 Page 3 of 5 Vibby Go�emukkala 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.
11. 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.