Loading judgment…
Facts
The assessee filed an appeal against an order of the Principal CIT (PCIT) refusing to condone the delay in filing the income tax return for AY 2022-23. The PCIT rejected the petition for condonation of delay under section 119(2)(b) of the Income Tax Act, 1961.
Held
The Tribunal held that an order passed by the PCIT under section 119 of the Income Tax Act is not appealable before the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT). Therefore, the appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed as not maintainable.
Key Issues
Whether an order passed by the Principal CIT under section 119 of the Income Tax Act is appealable before the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal.
Sections Cited
119, 119(2)(b), 253(1), 154, 158BFA, 250, 270A, 271, 271A, 271AAB, 271AAC, 271AAD, 271J, 272A, 154, 250, 270A, 271, 271A, 271AAC, 271AAD, 271J, 158-BC, 132, 132-A, 115VZC, 12AA, 12AB, 80G, 263, 270A, 271, 272A, 154, 263, 272A, 154, 143, 147, 153A, 153C, 143, 147, 153A, 153C, 144BA, 154, 155, 10
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, LUCKNOW ‘B’ BENCH, LUCKNOW
A.Y. 2022-23 WSG Venture Pvt. Ltd., vs. The DCIT, 1-59, MIG, Word Bank Barra, Circle 2(1)(1), Kanpur Kanpur-208027 PAN:AACCW7342L (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee by: None Revenue by: Sh. Sunil Kumar Rajwanshi, Addl. CIT DR Date of hearing: 21.05.2025 Date of pronouncement: 29.05.2025 O R D E R PER NIKHIL CHOUDHARY, A.M.: This is an appeal by the assessee against the order of the ld. PCIT-1, Kanpur passed under section 119 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 on 5.12.2024 refusing to condone the delay in filing the income tax return for the assessment year 2022-23 with the claimed refund of Rs. 10,000/-. The grounds of appeal are as under:-
01. THAT due to mistake of counsel, the ITR for the AY 2022-23 could not be filed of the assessee company, whereas the certificate of the counsel was also filed, but ignore the same and rejected the petition moved u/s.119(2)(b) of the Act, which action of the Pr. CIT is contrary to fact and be quashed.
02. THAT the order passed by the Pr. CIT u/s.119 of the Income Tax Act reject the petition for condonation of delay moved u/s.119(2)(b) of the Act is not lawful, bad in law, be quashed.
03. THAT the Pr. CIT as well as CPC has erred on facts and in law in arbitrarily rejecting the petition of the assessee company to rectify the return of income, which should ought to have done.
2. When the case was taken up for hearing, Sh. Sunil Kumar Rajwanshi, ld. Addl CIT DR (hereinafter referred to as the ‘ld. Addl CIT DR) drew our attention to the provisions of section 253(1) of the Income Tax Act and pointed out that the said order under section 119 was not appealable order before the ITAT. He, therefore, prayed that the same may kindly be dismissed as non-maintainable.
3. We have duly considered the facts and circumstances of the case. Section 253(1) of the Income Tax Act reads as under:- “253. (1) Any assessee aggrieved by any of the following orders may appeal to the Appellate Tribunal against such order- (a) an order passed by a [Deputy Commissioner (Appeals) [before the 1st day of October, 1998] [or, as the case may be, a Commissioner (Appeals) under [***] [Section 154], [Section 158BFA,] [***] section 250, {section 270A,] [section 271, section 271A [,section 271AAB, section 271AAC, section 271AAD] [,section 271J] or 272A]; or [(aa) an order passed by a Joint Commissioner (Appeals) under section 154, section 250, section 270A, section 271, section 271A, section 271AAC, section 271AAD or section 271J;or] [(b) an order passed by an Assessing Officer under clause (c) of section 158-BC, in respect of search initiated under section 132 or books of account, other documents or any assets requisitioned under section 132-A, after the 30th day of June, 1995, but before the 1st day of January, 1997; or] [(ba) an order passed by an Assessing Officer under sub-section (1) of section 115VZC; or] [(c) an order passed by,-- (i) A Principal Commissioner or Commissioner under section 12AA or section 12AB or under clause (vi) of sub-section (5) of section 80G or under section 263 or under section 270A or under section 271 or under section 272A or an order passed by him under section 154 amending any such order; or (ii) a Principal Chief Commissioner or Chief Commissioner or a Principal Director General or Director General or a Principal Director or Director under section 263 or under section 272A or an order passed by him under section 154 amending any such order; or] [(d) an order passed by an Assessing Officer under sub-section (3), of section 143 or section 147 [or section 153A or section 153C] in pursuance of the directions of the Dispute Resolution Panel or an order passed under section 154 in respect of such order,] [(e) an order passed by an Assessing Officer under sub section (3) of section 143 or section 147 or section 153A or section 153C with the approval of the [Principal Commissioner or] Commissioner as referred to in sub-section (12) of section 144BA or an order passed under section 154 or section 155 in respect of such order;] [(f) an order passed by the prescribed authority under [sub-clause (iv) or sub-clause (v) or] sub- clause (vi) or sub-clause (via) of clause (23C) of section 10.]”