YETCHINA SRINIVAS,BILASPUR vs. DCIT, CIRCLE, 1(1), PUNE

The captioned appeal at the instance of assessee pertaining to Assessment Year 2018-19 is directed against the order dated 30.01.2025 of National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi emanating out of Assessment order dated 24.03.2021 passed u/s.143(3) r.w.s.143(3A) & 143(3B) of the Income Tax Act, 1961.

Registry has informed that that the instant appeal is barred by limitation as the assessee has filed this appeal with a delay of 100 days. Assessee has filed an Affidavit explaining the reasons for delay.

After hearing both the sides and perusing the averments made in the affidavit, it is overt that assessee is fully dependent on the Tax Consultant and due to wrong advice by the consultants coupled with the fact that assessee has changed his residence from Delhi to Pune, the delay has arisen and therefore the assessee could not file the appeal within the prescribed time limit. I am satisfied that ‘reasonable cause’ prevented the assessee to file the appeal within the stipulated time. However, in the larger interest of justice adopting justice oriented approach and taking guidance from the judgments of Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Collector, Land Acquisition, Anantnag & Anr. Vs. Mst. Katiji & Ors. reported in (1987) 2 SCC 107 and in the case of Inder Singh Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh judgment dated 21.03.2025 (2025 INSC 382) I condone the delay of 100 days in filing of the instant appeal before this Tribunal and admit the appeal for adjudication.

The only grievance of the assessee mainly revolve around the disallowance of EPF expenses of Rs.16,98,992/- ESI expenses at Rs.3,18,459/- and deduction of claim u/s.80C of the Act.

At the outset, ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted that ld.CIT(A) has partly allowed the appeal by giving directions to the ld. Assessing Officer for carrying out necessary verification about the deduction u/s.80C of the Act and so far as remaining issues are concerned, assessee wishes to place certain more details before the lower authorities for which ld. Counsel prayed that one more opportunity may please be granted to assessee.

On the other hand, ld. Departmental Representative supported the order of ld.CIT(A).

I have heard the rival contentions and perused the record placed before me. Against the impugned additions made by ld. Assessing officer in the assessment order for A.Y. 2018-19, I find that in the appellate proceedings before ld.CIT(A) assessee could not furnish certain details. Ld.CIT(A) also observed that major part of the assessment proceedings were carried out during covid-19 pandemic period restrictions and the assessee could not respond properly owing to his ill health. Considering these aspects, ld.CIT(A) felt that the matter requires cross verification and directed the ld. Assessing Officer to carry out necessary verification. Finding of ld.CIT(A) reads as follows :

Under these given facts and circumstances, where the assessee had no opportunity to file submission/details before ld. Assessing Officer due to covid-19 pandemic restrictions prevailed across the country and on account of his ill-health, I deem it proper to provide one more opportunity to the assessee by remitting back the issues raised in the instant appeal to the file of ld. Jurisdictional Assessing Officer for denovo adjudication. Needless to mention that ld.JAO shall grant reasonable opportunity to the assessee. Assessee is also directed to remain vigilant and not to take adjournment unless otherwise required for reasonable cause. Effective grounds raised by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes.

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes.