Loading judgment…
Facts
The assessee filed an appeal against an order that dismissed their appeal for being non-maintainable. The assessee had made a claim for exemption under Section 10(23C)(iiiad) which was disallowed by the CPC during processing under Section 143(1) due to a perceived error in filing the return. The assessee argued this was an unintentional mistake and they were eligible for the exemption.
Held
The Tribunal held that an appeal against an intimation under Section 143(1) is maintainable, contrary to the CIT(A)'s decision. The Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s order and restored the matter to the CIT(A) for a fresh adjudication on merits, allowing the assessee a reasonable opportunity. The Stay Application was dismissed as infructuous.
Key Issues
Whether an appeal against an intimation order passed under Section 143(1) of the Income Tax Act is maintainable before the CIT(A) even if it was dismissed by the CIT(A) on grounds of non-maintainability.
Sections Cited
253(3), 143(1), 10(23C)(iiiad), 143(1A), 246(1)(a), 139(5), 154
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, LUCKNOW BENCH “SMC”, LUCKNOW
Before: SHRI ANADEE NATH MISSHRA
2018-19 against impugned appellate order dated 27/12/2024 (DIN & Order No.ITBA/APL/S/250/2024- 25/1071633051(1) of Addl./Joint Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) [“ADDL/JCITCIT(A)” for short].
(B) This appeal has been filed by the assessee, beyond time limit prescribed under section 253(3) of IT Act. The assessee has submitted application for condonation of delay in filing of the appeal; pleading that the delay was unintentional and beyond the control of the assessee and has requested to admit the appeal for hearing. The learned Sr. Departmental Representative for Revenue did not express any objection to assessee’s application for condonation of delay in filing of the appeal. In view of the foregoing, and in specific facts and circumstances of the present appeal before us, the delay in filing of this appeal is condoned; and the appeal is admitted for hearing.
(C) In this case assessee’s appeal against adjustment made under section 143(1) of the Act was dismissed by the learned CIT(A) vide order dated 27/12/2024 on the ground that the appeal was not maintainable. The relevant portion of the order of the learned CIT(A) is reproduced as under:
(D) Present appeal has been filed by the assessee against the aforesaid impugned appellate order of learned CIT(A). In the course of appellate proceedings in Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, the following particulars was filed from the assessee’s side:
(E) At the time of hearing, the learned A.R. for the assessee submitted that the appeal was wrongly dismissed by the learned CIT(A) although it was maintainable. In this regard he placed reliance on the order of Agra Bench of the ITAT in the case of M/s Dixit Rice Mill vs. DCIT (I.T.A.
No.373/Agra/2018 dated 10/01/2020), relevant portion of which is reproduced as under: the light of the above, the Grounds raised by assessee are treated as allowed for statistical purposes. (E.1) The learned Departmental Representative relied on the impugned appellate order of the learned CIT(A), and left the matter to the discretion of the Bench.
(E.2) We have heard both sides. We have perused materials on record. On perusal of section 246(1)(a) of the I.T. Act, it is found that the appeal against adjustment made in the intimation under section 143(1) of the Act is specifically provided. The relevant part of section 246(1) is reproduced below:
(1) ………………… (a) an order being an intimation under sub-section (1) of section 143, where the assessee objects to the making of adjustments, or any order of assessment under sub-section (3) of section 143 or section 144, where the assessee objects to the amount of income assessed, or to the amount of tax determined, or to the amount of loss computed, or to the status under which he is assessed; ………………………… (E.2.1) Further, Agra Bench of the ITAT, in the aforesaid case of Dixit Rice Mill (supra), has also taken the view that appeal against intimation issued under section 143(1) of the Act is maintainable. In view of the foregoing and respectfully following the order of Agra Bench of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal in the aforesaid case of Dixit Rice Mill (supra), it is held that the learned CIT(A) has erred in law in dismissing assessee’s appeal on ground of non maintainability. In the facts and circumstances of the present case and on consideration of applicable law, it is held that the appeal of the assessee was maintainable before learned CIT(A). In view of the foregoing, the order of learned CIT(A) is set aside and issue in dispute regarding adjustment made in the intimation issued under section 143(1) is restored back to the file of the learned CIT(A) with the direction to pass de novo order in accordance with law and decide the disputes on merits, after providing reasonable opportunity to the assessee.
(E.3) Since the appeal has been decided as above, the Stay Application vide Stay Application No.02/Lkw/2025 has become infructuous; hence not decided.
(F) In the result, the appeal is partly allowed and the Stay Application is dismissed as having become infructuous.
(Order pronounced in the open court on 28/11/2025)