Loading judgment…
Facts
The assessee filed an appeal against the order of the CIT(A) which had dismissed their appeal on the ground of delay. The delay in filing the appeal before the CIT(A) was approximately one year and ten months.
Held
The Tribunal condoned the delay, holding that there was sufficient cause for the delay considering the exclusion of the Covid-19 period. The matter was set aside to the CIT(A) for denovo adjudication on merits.
Key Issues
Whether the delay in filing the appeal before the CIT(A) was justifiably condoned, and if so, the appeal should be adjudicated on merits.
Sections Cited
250, 154, 80P, 143(1), 234A, 234B, 234C, 234F
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, PUNE BENCHES “B” :: PUNE
Before: DR.DIPAK P. RIPOTE & SHRI VINAY BHAMORE
ORDER
PER DR. DIPAK P. RIPOTE, AM:
This appeal is filed by the Assessee against the order of ld.Commissioner of Income Tax(Appeal)[NFAC] passed under section 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 for A.Y.2018-19, dated 20.03.2025 emanating from Assessment Order u/s.154 of the I.T.Act, dated 26.11.2019. The assessee has raised following grounds of appeal :
“1. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and without prejudice to any other grounds, the learned CIT(A) has erred in not condoning the delay in filing the appeal before him despite there being a reasonable cause explained during the course of appellate proceedings as well as by way of affidavit and hence the appeal of the Appellant may please be admitted, adjudicated on merits and the additions made may please be deleted
On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and without prejudice to any other grounds, the learned CIT(A) has erred in passing an order under section 250 of the Act without adjudicating the matter on merits and without dealing with the specific grounds raised by the appellant, in violation of the mandate of section 250(6) of the Act and therefore, the impugned order, being non-speaking and devoid of proper reasoning, is bad in law and deserves to be quashed
3. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and without prejudice to any other grounds, the learned CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts in upholding the disallowance of deduction under section 80P of the Act while processing the return under section 143(1), ignoring that the amendment to section 143(1)(a)(v) permitting such adjustment was introduced by the Finance Act, 2021 with effect from 01-04-2021 and is prospective in nature, accordingly, for A.Y 2018-19, the disallowance is without jurisdiction and thus, liable to be deleted
4. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and without prejudice to a other grounds, Ld. CIT-Appeal and Ld. CPC have erred in confirming/making the addition of Rs 15.02.580/- under section 143(1) which is without jurisdiction and hence, bad in law and thus, the same may please be deleted and quashed
On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and without prejudice to any other grounds, whether Appellant is eligible for exemption u/s 80P or not, is a debatable issue and requires long drawn process of reasons and arguments and verification of facts and could 2 only be decided in the detailed assessment and not by way of intimation u/s 143(1) and thus, the adjustment made by the CPC Bangalore in the impugned intimation u/s 143(1) making addition of Rs 15,02,580/-is without jurisdiction and hence, the said intimation as well as adjustment/ addition made therein may please be quashed
On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law and without prejudice to any other ground, Ld. CPC Bengaluru has erred in denying the exemption u/s 80P of the Act and thereby further erred in assessing the total income of the Appellant at Rs 15.02.580/- as against the returned income of Rs NIL which is factually and legally incorrect and invalid and hence, the same may be quashed
On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law and without prejudice to any other ground, Ld. CPC Bengaluru has erred in levying interest u/s 234A, 234B and 234C of the Act and hence, the same may please be deleted.
On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law and without prejudice to any other ground. Ld. CPC Bengaluru has erred in levying fee u/s 234F of the Act and hence, the same may please be deleted
The appellant craves leave to add, amend, modify, alter, revise, substitute, or withdraw any or all grounds of the appeal, if deemed necessary at the time of hearing of the appeal, in the interest of justice.” Findings & Analysis : 2. We have heard both the parties and perused the records. In this case, there was a delay in filing appeal before ld.CIT(A) of one year, ten months. Ld.CIT(A) dismissed the appeal of the assessee on the ground of delay.
Before us, ld.AR filed copy of the Affidavit and a table containing calculation of delay. Ld.AR submitted that after excluding the Covid-19 period from 15.03.2020 to 28.02.2022, the actual delay is only of 80 days. This fact has not been rebutted by ld.DR for the Revenue.
We have perused the Affidavit filed by the ld.AR and are convinced that there was sufficient cause for not filing the appeal within time. In these facts and circumstances of the case, we direct ld.CIT(A) to condone the delay and decide the appeal on merits. Accordingly, the order of the ld.CIT(A) is set-aside to ld.CIT(A) for denovo adjudication. Accordingly, grounds of appeal raised by the Assessee are allowed for statistical purpose.