Loading judgment…
Facts
The assessee, Vadodara Urban Development Authority, a Government Organization, filed an appeal before the CIT(A) with a delay of 109 days. The CIT(A) dismissed the appeal as time-barred without addressing the merits. The delay was attributed to the transfer of the Chief Accounts Officer and the inherent procedural formalities within the government organization.
Held
The ITAT condoned the 109-day delay, acknowledging that the assessee is a Government Organization bound by specific rules and procedures, and that the delay was not intentional. The tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s order and remanded the matter back to the CIT(A) for a fresh decision on merits, subject to the assessee depositing Rs. 5,000/- in the Prime Minister's National Relief Fund.
Key Issues
Whether the 109-day delay in filing an appeal by a Government Organization before the CIT(A) should be condoned, allowing the matter to be decided on its merits.
Sections Cited
250
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Detected automatically from the text. The count shows how many other judgments on BharatTax rely on the same authority.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “B” BENCH, AHMEDABAD
Before: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Makarand V. Mahadeokar
"ी संजय गग", "ाियक सद" एवं "ी मकरंद वसंत महादेवकर, लेखा सद" के सम!। ] ] Before Shri Sanjay Garg, Judicial Member And Shri Makarand V. Mahadeokar, Accountant Member आयकर अपील सं / Year : 2014-15 Vadodara Urban The Dy.CIT (Exemption) बनाम/ Development Authority Circle-2 v/s. VUDA Bhavan, L&T Circle, Ahmedabad – 380 015 Karelibaugh S.O., Vadodara – 390 015 (Gujarat) "थायी लेखा सं./PAN: AAABV 0141 M (अपीलाथ$/ Appellant) (%& यथ$/ Respondent) Assessee by : Shri Hardik Vora, Advocate Revenue by : Shri B.P. Rastogi, CIR-DR सुनवाई की तारीख/Date of Hearing : 19/082025 घोषणा की तारीख /Date of Pronouncement: 22/08/2025 आदेश/O R D E R
Per Sanjay Garg, Judicial Member:
The present appeal has been preferred by the assessee against the order of the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi [hereinafter referred to as ‘CIT(A)’] dated 27/03/2025 passed u/s.250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) for the Assessment Year (AY) 2014-2015.
At the outset, the Ld.Counsel for the assessee submitted that the assessee is a Government Organization. That there was a delay of 109 days in filing the appeal before the Ld.CIT(A). The Ld.Counsel further invited our Vadodara Urban Development Authority vs. The Dy.CIT (Exemption), Circle-2 Asstt.Year 2014-15 attention to the impugned order of the Ld.CIT(A) has submitted that the Ld.CIT(A) has not condoned the delay in filing the appeal and has dismissed the appeal of the assessee being barred by limitation. That no findings on merits have been given by the Ld.CIT(A). The Ld.Counsel has further submitted that the delay in filing the appeal before the Ld.CIT(A) was not intentional, in fact, the assessee being a Government Organization has to follow government rules and regulations. Only a person competent to sign the appeal form could have filed the appeal. That the concerned competent officer, i.e. Chief Accounts Officer of the assessee-organization had been transferred and his office was vacant for the period from 31/05/2024 to 15/06/2024. When the new Chief Accounts Officer joined and the matter was put up before him and he, after reviewing an understanding the entire facts of the case, decided to file the appeal and that in the process, the aforesaid delay of 109 days had occurred in filing the appeal before the Ld.CIT(A). That a separate application for condonation of delay was filed before the Ld.CIT(A). However, the Ld.CIT(A) for the reasons mentioned in the impugned order has rejected the application of condonation of delay and thereby dismissed the appeal of the assessee. The Ld.Counsel has submitted that the assessee has a fair case on merits and that, in fact, the case of the assessee is duly covered by the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of ACIT (Exemptions) Vs. Ahmedabad Urban Development Authority and Ors. reported in 449 ITR 1 (SC). The Ld.Counsel has further submitted that there are certain limitations for the Government Organisations and its Officers, due to which certain Departmental procedure and formalities have to be adopted, resulting into the aforesaid delay of 109 days in filing the appeal before the Ld.CIT(A). The Ld.Counsel has submitted that, for the sake of interests of justice, the delay in filing the appeal before the Ld.CIT(A) Vadodara Urban Development Authority vs. The Dy.CIT (Exemption), Circle-2 Asstt.Year 2014-15 be condoned and the matter may be restored to the file of ld.CIT(A) for decision on the assessee’s appeal on merits.
The Ld.Departmental Representative (DR), on the other hand, has relied upon the findings of the Ld.CIT(A).
We have considered the rival submissions and gone through the record. It is to be noticed that the assessee-organisation is a Government Organisation. It is also commonly known that a Government Organisation and its officials have to work as per the prescribed rules and procedure. The competent Officer to decide as to whether the appeal has to be filed against the assessment order and further also signing authority was the Chief Accounts Officer. It is also a fact on the file that the office of the Chief Accounts Officer of the assessee-organisation remained vacant for the period from 31/05/2024 to 15/06/2024. Even after the new incumbent joined, there were certain departmental procedure and formalities and the concerned officer had to go through the various pending matters including the matter relating to filing the present appeal. After application of mind, the said Officer has preferred the appeal and, in this process, a short delay of 109 days has occurred. Considering the overall facts and circumstances of the case, in our view, the interests of justice will be well-served, if the assessee is given an opportunity to present its case on merits before the CIT(A). For the delay occurred in filing the appeal, the assessee is burdened with a costs of Rs.5,000/- to be deposited in the Prime Minister’s National Relief Fund. The impugned order of the Ld.CIT(A) is set aside and the matter is restored to the file of ld.CIT(A) for decision afresh on merits irrespective of the aforesaid delay occurred in filing the appeal before him, however, subject to furnishing Vadodara Urban Development Authority vs. The Dy.CIT (Exemption), Circle-2 Asstt.Year 2014-15 of evidence of deposit of Rs.5,000/- in the Prime Minister’s National Relief Fund.