Loading judgment…
Facts
The assessee filed a rectification application under Section 154 of the Income Tax Act for AY 2014-15, claiming a tax rebate on agriculture income that was not given. This application was rejected by the AO, and subsequently by the CIT(A), as it was filed beyond the prescribed limitation period of 4 years from the original intimation order.
Held
The Tribunal held that the "impugned order" was not proper. It condoned the delay in filing the appeal, finding that the assessee became aware of the intimation order only upon receiving a demand recovery notice. The matter was remanded to the AO to decide the issue of service of the intimation order and then treat the Section 154 application appropriately.
Key Issues
Whether the rectification application filed by the assessee was within the prescribed limitation period, considering the date of knowledge of the intimation order, and whether the delay in filing the appeal should be condoned.
Sections Cited
253, 154, 246A, 10(23C)(v), 143(1)
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, INDORE BENCH, INDORE
Before: SHRI B.M. BIYANI & SHRI PARESH M JOSHI
the order bearing Number ITBA/NFAC/S/250/2024- 25/1066383230(1) dated 03.07.2024 passed by the Ld. CIT(A) u/s 250 of the Act which is hereinafter referred to as the “Impugned order”. The relevant Assessment Year is 2014-15
Hare Ram Mandir Trust & 7708/Ind/2024 - A.Ys. 2014-15 & 2015-16 and the corresponding previous year period is from 01.04.2013 to 31.03.2014.
FACTUAL MATRIX 2.1 That as and by way of rectification order made u/s 154 of the Act, the rectification application filed on 01.04.2022 in respect of rectification of demand for the Assessment Year 2014- 15 was rejected by the Ld. A.O. That the aforesaid rectification order bears No. ITBA/COM/F/17/2022-23/10433682331(1) and that the same is dated 30.06.2022 which is hereinafter referred to as the “impugned rectification order”.
2.2 That in the aforesaid rectification application filed on 01.04.2022 through ITBA portal the assessee claimed that the tax rebate on the agriculture income was not given by the Ld. A.O for the year under consideration while computing the tax liability. The assessee however did not submit any supporting document in respect of claim.
2.3 The assessee was given an opportunity of being heard vide letter dated 05.04.2022 and that all the supporting documents were called for on or before 18.04.2022. That on 19.04.2022 the Page 2 of 10
Hare Ram Mandir Trust & 7708/Ind/2024 - A.Ys. 2014-15 & 2015-16 assessee submitted a request for an adjournment. That finally the assessee vide reply dated 06.05.2022 made submissions along with the Income & Expenditure Account and Balance Sheet for the year under consideration.
2.4 That in the “impugned rectification order” the Ld. A.O has recorded the following facts which were noticed:-
The assessee has claimed exemption U/s 10(23C)(v) of the Act without having any registration certificate. The assessee claimed in his reply that it was by mistake. Agriculture Income of Rs 3,64,389/- was shown by the assessee and tax rebate Rs 1,09,317/- on agriculture income in already provided by the CPC intimation order dated 02.02.2016. As per the ITR the assessee has shown revenue expenditure of Rs 5,07,644/-. As per the reply dated 06.05.2022, the assessee has claimed revenue expenditure of Rs 5,07,644/-. As per the Income Expenditure account for AY 2014-15, it has been shown as Rs 5,86,395/- As per the ITR the assessee has shown Capital expenditure of Rs 32,130/- As per the reply dated 06.05.2022, the assessee has claimed Capital expenditure of Rs 32,130/-. As per the Income Expenditure account for AY 2014-15, it has been shown as Rs 10,66,435/-. Order U/s 143(1) was passed on 02.02.2016 and application for rectification of demand is filed on 01.04.2022 which is beyond the period of 4 years”.
2.5 That amongst others one of the ground for the rejection of was that the order u/s 143(1) of the Act was passed on Page 3 of 10
Hare Ram Mandir Trust & 7708/Ind/2024 - A.Ys. 2014-15 & 2015-16 02.02.2016 and that the application for rectification of demand was filed on 01.04.2022 which is beyond the period of 4 years.
2.6 That the assessee being aggrieved by the “impugned rectification order” prefers the first appeal u/s 246A of the Act before the CIT(A) who by the “impugned order” has dismissed the 1st appeal of the assessee on the ground and reason stated therein. The core ground and reason for the dismissal of the first appeal was as under:-
“5.4. In view of the facts narrated by the AO, I am of the considered view that the return of income was processed by the AO based on the ITR form filed by the appellant on 15.05.2015. Accordingly, the rectification petition filed by the appellant to correct the ITR Form on 01.04.2022 before the AO is beyond the period of 4 years as stipulated as per the section 154 of the Act. Since, the rectification petition filed before the AO is beyond the limitation of time prescribed as per section 154 of the Act, the action of the AO by rejecting the said rectification petition is sustainable and accordingly the grounds of appeal filed by the appellant is dismissed.
6. As a result, the appeal is dismissed.”
2.7 That the assessee being aggrieved by the “impugned order” has preferred the instant second appeal before this Tribunal and has raised following grounds of appeal in the Form No.36 against the “impugned order” which are as under:-
Hare Ram Mandir Trust & 7708/Ind/2024 - A.Ys. 2014-15 & 2015-16 “1. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in Id. CIT(A) erred in upholding the addition made by Id. AO and rejecting the application for rectification. The appellant prays that the said rectification directed to be accepted 2. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in Id. AO erred in rejecting the application for rectification. The appellant prays that the said rectification directed to be accepted 3. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law the ld. CIT(A) erred in not treating agricultural income as exempt. The appellant prays that the said income be treated as exempt.
4. The Appellant craves to add, amend, alter any grounds further at the time of hearing”.
Record of Hearing 3.1 The hearing in the matter took place before this Tribunal on 24.09.2025 when the Ld. AR for and on behalf of the assessee appeared before us and interalia contended that there is a delay of 47 days in filing the instant second appeal and that in this regard a condonation of delay application is placed on record.
That the “impugned order” is dated 03.07.2024 and that on that date the assessee had not received the “impugned order” passed on 03.07.2024 by the Ld. CIT(A). The assessee is a religious trust and is managed by the trustees in good faith.
Therefore under a belief that action is being taken on its appeal and that the same is pending since no physical intimation has yet come. That subsequently the assessee received the “impugned order” dated 06.09.2024 and that too after logging in Page 5 of 10
Hare Ram Mandir Trust & 7708/Ind/2024 - A.Ys. 2014-15 & 2015-16 to the portal encountered the “impugned order”. The delay of 47 days was primarily due to non service of “impugned order” which came to their notice as aforesaid. An affidavit in support [Serial No.15637/25] dated 23.09.2025 is placed on record in support of the condonation of delay application of one Shri Sitaram Thakur aged 76 years who is the Secretary of the assessee trust wherein it is affirmed and declared that the “impugned order” was not received by the assessee trust physically and that they encountered the “impugned order” only on 06.09.2024 as aforesaid. It was finally prayed that the delay if any was a bonafide one. Per contra Ld. DR stated that revenue has no objection if the delay is condoned. Accordingly we condone the delay and admit the appeal.
3.2 The Ld. AR then showed us the recovery of demand outstanding notice dated 15.11.2021 wherein for the year under consideration 2014-15 there was a demand of Rs.2,42,240/- as not paid. The Ld. AR then contended that at this point of time and date i.e. 15.12.2021 they became aware of the intimation order passed u/s 143(1)(a) of the Act and Page 6 of 10
Hare Ram Mandir Trust & 7708/Ind/2024 - A.Ys. 2014-15 & 2015-16 thereafter preferred the rectification application u/s 154 of the Act on 01.04.2022 before the Ld. A.O and therefore the said application u/s 154 of the Act is well within the period of 4 years as stipulated as per the Section 154 of the Act and the Ld.
A.O has erred and so also the first appellate authority. The assessee in their affidavit [Serial No.15635/25] dated 23.09.2025 has declared that they had not received the order passed by the CPC u/s 143(1)(a) of the Act and that they encountered the same on 15.12.2021, the date of notice of recovery of demand outstanding [Shown to us during the hearing and kept on record]. In the aforesaid affidavit at para 3 it is repeated and reiterated that they never received the intimation order u/s 143(1) of the Act and came to know only on receipt of demand recovery notice (supra). Therefore time begins to run from 15.12.2021 and the rectification application u/s 154 of the Act was filed on 01.04.2022 which is within the prescribed period of 4 years stipulated u/s 154 of the Act. It was finally prayed that in the interest of justice the “impugned order” should be set aside and matter be remanded back to the file of Ld. A.O. Per contra Ld. DR appearing for revenue stated that no Page 7 of 10
Hare Ram Mandir Trust & 7708/Ind/2024 - A.Ys. 2014-15 & 2015-16 explanation was given before the Ld. CIT(A) and that issue of service of intimation order was not dealt by the Ld. CIT(A) as assessee did not substantiate the point on service of intimation order.
Observations,findings & conclusions.
4.1 We now have to decide the legality, validity and the proprietery of the “impugned order” basis records of the case and rival contentions canvassed before us.
4.2 We have carefully perused the records of the case as presented to this Tribunal by both the Ld. AR & the Ld. DR to determine the legality, validity of the “impugned order” basis law and by following the due process.
4.3 We basis records of the case and after hearing and upon examining the contentions are of the considered opinion that the “impugned order” is not proper as over all gamut of the case could not be appreciated for some reason or the other, in view of aforesaid factual matrix drawn up by us, basis records. We therefore in view of the fact that the assessee came to know of about the intimation order u/s 143(1)(a) only upon receipt of notice for recovery of demand dated 15.12.2021 which fact is now
Hare Ram Mandir Trust & 7708/Ind/2024 - A.Ys. 2014-15 & 2015-16 supported by an affidavit [Serial No.15635/25] dated 23.09.2025 of Shri Sitaram Thakur aged 76, Secretary of assessee trust holds that it is only on 15.12.2021 the assessee encountered the intimation order and not on 02.02.2016. The Ld. DR for revenue has not seriously disputed the aforesaid affidavit on any grounds too. Under these circumstances we set aside the “impugned order” of Ld. CIT(A) as and by way of remand to the Ld. A.O on denovo basis with a direction to decide the service of the intimation order u/s 143(1)(a) of the Act as of 15.12.2021 or 02.02.2016 (supra) and then to treat the application u/s 154 of the Act appropriately within the time or beyond the time limit period of four years which was preferred by the assessee on 01.04.2022.
Order 5.1 The “impugned order” is set aside and the matter is remanded back to the file of the Ld. A.O to pass a fresh order which should be a reasoned one on denovo basis.
5.2 In the result appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purpose.
Hare Ram Mandir Trust & 7708/Ind/2024 - A.Ys. 2014-15 & 2015-16 5.3 (Assessment Year 2015-16)
The facts and circumstances are similar and identical save and except Assessment Year hence the finding given by us in would mutadis mutandis will apply to this appeal too.
5.4 In result both the appeals are allowed for statistical purpose.
Order pronounced in open court on 30.09.2025.