Loading judgment…
Facts
The assessee filed an appeal against the order of the CIT(A) which dismissed its first appeal on the grounds of delay. The assessee contended that the delay in filing the appeal was condoned due to extended e-filing timelines and that the CIT(A) failed to consider the merits of the case.
Held
The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) erred in dismissing the appeal solely on the grounds of delay without considering the merits. The Tribunal noted that the e-filing period was extended and the appeal was filed within the extended timeline. Consequently, the impugned order was set aside, and the matter was remanded back to the CIT(A).
Key Issues
Whether the CIT(A) was justified in dismissing the appeal on grounds of delay without considering the merits, especially when the appeal was filed within the extended e-filing period.
Sections Cited
143(3), 246A, 249(2), 249(3), 253
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, INDORE BENCH, INDORE
the order bearing Number ITBA/NFAC/S/250/2024- 25/1069365385(1) dated 04.10.2024 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 2013-14
Page 1 of 7 and the corresponding previous year period is from 01.04.2012 to 31.03.2013.
FACTUAL MATRIX 2.1 That as and by way of an assessment order dated 20.03.205 passed u/s 143(3) of the Act, the assessee’s total income exigible to tax was assessed and computed at Rs.5,51,34,940/-. The total income as per return was at Rs.28,670/-. Addition of Rs.2,65,76,008/- was made on account of income from other sources. The addition of Rs.35,85,243/- was made on account of prior period expenses.
The Addition of Rs.2,47,07,489/- was made on account of “difference amount of interest income earned”. Addition of Rs.2,37,533/- was made on account of undisclosed income. That the aforesaid assessment order is dated 23.02.2016 which is hereinafter referred to as the “impugned assessment order”.
2.2 That the assessee being aggrieved by the aforesaid “impugned assessment order” prefers the first appeal u/s 246A of the Act before the Ld. CIT(A) who by the “impugned order” has dismissed the 1st appeal of the assessee on the Page 2 of 7 grounds and reasons stated therein. The core grounds and reasons for the dismissal of the 1st appeal was as under:-
“5. Delay in filing of Appeal: a) The AO passed the Assessment order u/s 143(3) on 23.02.2016. This order was served on 10.03.2016 as per Form 35. Appellant had to file appeal on or before: 10.04.2016 i.e. within 30 days of receipt of order. However the Appellant filed appeal on 13.06.2016 i.e. there is delay of 64 days in filing appeal. The Appellant has not applied for condonation of delay. b) As per section 249(2) of the I.T. Act, the assessee shall present its appeal within 30 days of service of notice of demand relating to the assessment. The section 249(3) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 empowers the first appellate authority to admit the appeal after the expiry of limitation of time for filing the appeal if appellant had good and sufficient reasons for the rot presenting the appeal within the time period prescribed u/s 249(2) of the Act. In the present case, the appellant has not made any request for condonation of delay in filing of the Appeal. I find that there is no good and sufficient cause for condoning the delay in the institution of appeal by the appellant and thus the appeal is dismissed on account of being filed beyond the period prescribed under the Act, therefore, I am not expressing any opinion on merit of the case.
As a result, the appeal of the appellant is dismissed for statistical purpose”.
2.4 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 follows:-
“. The learned CIT(A) erred in dismissing the appeal stating that there is no good and sufficient cause for condonation of delay in institution of appeal by the appellant and thus the appeal is Page 3 of 7 dismissed on account of being filed beyond the period prescribed under the Act, where as the Ld. CIT(A) has failed to consider the fact that period for E-filing was extended wide Circular No. 20/2016 Dated: 26th May, 2016 accordingly date was extended for filing the appeal upto 15/06/2016 where as appeal was E- filed on 13/06/2016 thus it was within limitation.
2. The learned CIT (A) erred in law as has not considered the merit of case.
The appellant reserves the right to add, amend or alter ground of appeal at any time before the appeal is decided”
3. 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 the “impugned order” is illegal, not proper and is in the violation of the principles of natural justice. It should therefore be set aside. It was submitted by the Ld. AR that date of the “impugned assessment order" is 23.02.2016 and that the same was received by the assessee on 10.03.2016. That on 05.04.2016 the first appeal was filed manually which appeal was well within the statutory period of 30 days under the Act. Thereafter vide CBDT Circular No.20/2016 dated 26.05.2016 the e-filing of appeal under Rule 45 was permitted till 15.06.2016 (paper book page 17 & 18 relied upon). The e-filing was done on 13.06.2016. It is this Page 4 of 7 date the Ld. CIT(A) has taken in to consideration and not physical filing date of 05.04.2016. Further vide CIT(A) office letter dated 06.06.2016 page 17 of paper book the assessee was requested to e-file appeal on or before 15.06.2016 in view of Rule 45 which mandated e-filing of appeal before the Ld. CIT(A) w.e.f.
01.03.2016. Hence there is no non compliance of the Rule 45 nor was there any malafide intention. Hence the “impugned order” is bad in law and ought to be set aside. Ld. DR appearing for and on behalf of the revenue concurred with the submission made by the Ld. AR.
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 rival contentions are of the considered opinion
Page 5 of 7 that the “impugned order” in view of the factual position explained to us in para 3.1 above to which the Ld. DR for revenue has no objection we have no hesitation to hold that the “impugned order” passed by the Ld. CIT(A) is wrong and illegal and is accordingly set aside and that the matter is remanded back to the file of Ld. CIT(A) to pass a fresh order on denovo basis on merits and in accordance with law.
Order 5.1 The “impugned order” is set aside and the matter is remanded back to the file of the Ld. CIT(A) to pass a fresh order on denovo basis on merits of the case.
5.2 In the result appeal of the assesse is allowed for statistical purpose. Order pronounced in open court on 30.09.2025.