ELASTOMER PROCESSORS EMPLOYEES GRATUITY FUND,NAVI MUMBAI vs. ASST CIT (CPC), BANGALORE

PDF · subscribers
ITA 520/MUM/2020Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai06 October 2021AY 2014-154 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal before the CIT(A) considering the assessee was pursuing alternative remedies and is a charitable institution. The matter was remanded back to the CIT(A) for adjudication on merits.

What were the facts?

The assessee, a gratuity fund, filed an appeal before the CIT(A) with a delay of 880 days. The delay was attributed to pursuing rectification applications under Section 154 and a change of jurisdiction process. The CIT(A) dismissed the appeal solely on the ground of delay.

What were the issues?

Whether the delay in filing the appeal before the CIT(A) should be condoned due to the assessee pursuing rectification and jurisdiction change processes.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 154,Section 143(1),Section 12A

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “SMC” BENCH, MUMBAI

Before: SRI MAHAVIR SINGH

For Appellant: Ms. Nelam Jadhav, AR
Hearing: 06.10.2021Pronounced: 06.10.2021

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’).

1.

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.

2.

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.”

3.

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.

More judgments on Section 154

All 8,676 judgments and leading authorities on Section 154 →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →