VERTEX LAMINATE PRIVATE LIMITED,AHMEDABAD vs. THE DY.CIT, CIRCLE-4(1)(1), AHMEDABAD

PDF · subscribers
ITA 1575/AHD/2025Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad07 November 2025AY 2013-14Bench: DR. B.R.R. KUMAR, VICE-PRESIDENT SHRI SIDDHARTHA NAUTIYAL (Judicial Member)3 pages

In favour of the assessee: the assessee's appeal was allowed. From the AI summary of this appeal.

AI SummaryAllowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal found that, in light of CBDT Circular No.20/2016 which extended the electronic filing of appeals till 15.06.2016, the assessee's e-appeal filed on 04.06.2016 was within the due date. The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) erred in dismissing the appeal as time-barred and directed the CIT(A) to adjudicate the grounds of appeal on their merits.

What were the facts?

The assessee filed a manual appeal against an assessment order under Section 143(3), followed by an e-appeal. The Ld. CIT(A) dismissed the e-appeal as time-barred due to an 89-day delay, disregarding a CBDT Circular which extended the electronic filing deadline. The underlying appeal also involved an addition under Section 68 related to an unsecured loan.

What were the issues?

Whether the CIT(A) was justified in dismissing the assessee's e-appeal as time-barred despite a CBDT Circular extending the electronic filing deadline, and if the appeal should be adjudicated on merits.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 68,Section 143(3)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “D” BENCH, AHMEDABAD

For Appellant: Shri Tushar P. Hemani, Sr. Advocate &, Shri Kushal Bofaria, A.R
For Respondent: Shri Rameshwar Prasad Meena, Sr. DR
Hearing: 06.11.2025Pronounced: 07.11.2025

O R D E R PER DR. B.R.R. KUMAR, VICE-PRESIDENT:- This appeal is filed by the Assessee against the appellate order dated 18.06.2025 passed by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi, relating to the Assessment Year 2013-14.

2.

The assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal:

2. The learned CIT(A) erred in dismissing the appeal as time-barred without appreciating that the initial appeal was filed in paper form within due date and subsequently refiled electronically within the extended deadline as per CBDT Circular. The appeal ought to have been treated as filed within limitation.

Asst. Year : 2013-14 - 2– 3. The learned AO has erred in law and on facts of the case in making an addition pertaining to unsecured loan being unexplained cash credit amounting to Rs. 1,99,44,688/- u/s. 68 of the Act.

4. The learned AO has passed the order without properly appreciating the facts and they further erred in grossly ignoring submissions, explanations and information submitted by the appellant from time-to-time which ought to have been considered before passing the impugned order. The action of the learned AO is in clear breach of law and Principles of Natural Justice and therefore deserves to be quashed.

3.

On perusal of the record, we find that pursuant to the assessment order passed u/s.143(3) dated 08.03.2016, the assessee has filed manual appeal on 31.03.2016 before the Ld. CIT(A). Subsequently the assessee has also filed e-appeal on 04.06.2016. The Ld. CIT(A) summarily dismissed the appeal filed by the assessee on the ground that it was delayed by 89 days. We find that CBDT vide Circular No.20/2016 dated 26.05.2016 has extended electronic filing of appeals till 15.06.2016.

4.

Ergo, as per the CBDT Circular, the e-appeal filed by the assessee is to be treated as appeal filed within the due date. Non- adherence to the CBDT Circular by the Ld. CIT(A) has wrongly lead to dismissal of the appeal and caused undue hardship and mental agony to the assessee. We hereby direct the Ld. CIT(A) shall adjudicate the grounds on merits.

More judgments on Section 68

All 29,931 judgments and leading authorities on Section 68 →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →