Loading judgment…
No AI summary yet for this case.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “SMC” BENCH, MUMBAI
Before: SRI MAHAVIR SINGH
O R D E R भहावीय स िंह, उऩाध्मक्ष के द्वाया / PER MAHAVIR SINGH, VP: This appeal of assessee is arising out of order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)]-1, Mumbai [in short CIT(A)], in appeal No. CIT(A)-1/877/ACIT(CPC)/2018-19 vide dated 26.11.2019. The Assessment was framed by the ACIT(CPC) Bangalore for the A.Y. 2014-15 under section 143(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter ‘the Act’).
2. At the outset, the learned Counsel for the assessee Ms. Neelam Jadhav stated the first ground that the CIT(A) has erred in not condoning the delay of 880 days. For this assessee has raised the following ground:- “
I. Condonation of delay 2 Elastomer Processors Employees Gratuity Fund; AY 14 -15
1. The learned CIT(A) erred in dismissing the appeal only on the ground that the reasons for delay of 880 days in filing an before the CIT(A) was not satisfactory and bonafide.
The learned CIT(A) filed to appreciate that the delay in filing the appeal was due to bonafide as the appellant was pursuing the remedy of rectification application u/s 154 as per the advice of the Chartered Accountant. Hence, the delay in filing of appeal maybe directed to be condoned.”
The learned counsel for the assessee stated that the assessee was pursuing the remedy of rectification under section 154 of the Act in respect of intimation under section 143 (1) of the Act. The online application for rectification was filed on 13.04.2016 but the same was rejected on 25.10.2016. Subsequently, an application for rectification was sought to be filed with the jurisdictional Assessing Officer, which was refused by the Assessing Officer, since the Trust did not register under section 12A of the Act. The Trust was asked to get its Jurisdiction changed. The Trust filed an application for change of jurisdiction of PAN with the new jurisdictional officer on 06.09.2017 but no change of jurisdiction had effected. Against the above background the assessee preferred the appeal before CIT(A) and sought for condonation of delay for filing the appeal.