KAUSHALYA AGARWAL TRUST,INDORE vs. CPC BANGLORE, INCOME TAX DEPARTMENT, INDORE

आदेश / O R D E R

Per Paresh M Joshi, J.M.:

Kaushalya Agarwal Trust - A.Y.2017-18 relevant Assessment Year is 2017-18 and the corresponding previous year period is from 01.04.2016 to 31.03.2017.

2.2 That the assessee being aggrieved by the aforesaid “impugned rectification order” prefers 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 grounds and reasons stated therein.

2.3 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 Form No.36 against the “impugned order” which are as under:-

“1. That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) erred in dismissing the appeal filed as time barred without properly appreciating the facts of the case

Kaushalya Agarwal Trust - A.Y.2017-18 and the submissions made. The Learned CIT-(A) failed to consider that the impugned order was actually served on the appellant on a later date, different from the date mentioned on the face of the order, as correctly disclosed in Form 35.

2. That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT-(A) erred in dismissing the appeal in limine and not adjudicating on the merits of the case .

3. That on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law the CIT-(A) erred in not holding that the assessee trust is entitled to the benefit of Proviso to Section 164 of the Income Tax act, 1961.

4. That on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law the CIT-(A) erred in not holding that the income of the assessee trust is to be taxed as per normal rates of taxes and not the maximum marginal rate of tax as levied by the CPC.

5. The appellant craves leave to add, amend, modify, or withdraw any of the grounds of appeals at the time of hearing”.

As advised by registry the documents were re-uploaded. Hence

Kaushalya Agarwal Trust - A.Y.2017-18 delay and that the same may please be condoned. Ld. DR appearing for revenue has no objection if this tribunal desires to condone the delay. Accordingly the delay is condoned as sufficient cause is shown and appeal is admitted. It is accordingly taken up for hearing.

3.2 The Ld. AR then brought to our notice that in the “impugned order” the 1st appeal was dismissed only on ground of delay in the filing of the 1st appeal by 120 days. It was contended that the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in law in dismissing the 1st appeal on ground of delay of 120 days as in fact there was no delay. It was stated that the Ld. CIT(A) has calculated time from 18.10.2022 whereas “impugned rectification order” u/s 154 of the Act r.w.s. 143(1) though is dated 18.10.2022 but in the Form No.35 in column No.2 the assessee has clearly stated that date of “impugned rectification order” u/s 154 as 18.10.2022 but the date of service is as 21.01.2023. The date of filing of the first appeal is 06.02.2023 which was well within the time limit of 30 days. The Ld. CIT(A) has erroneously taken the date of 18.10.2022 which was in fact the date of “impugned rectification order” u/s 154 of the Act. The Ld. CIT(A) ought to Page 4 of 7

Kaushalya Agarwal Trust - A.Y.2017-18 have taken into consideration the date of service which was 21.01.2023 as per Form 35. The Ld. CIT(A) therefore has erred in law as time is required to be reckoned from date of service and not from date of order. Hence “impugned order” should be set aside. Per contra Ld. DR has not opposed the submissions of Ld.

AR. In fact Ld. DR concur with Ld. AR on delay aspect and has stated that there was in fact no delay.

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 Ld. AR & Ld. DR to determine the legality, validity of the “impugned order” basis law and by following due process .

4.3 We are of the considered opinion that the “impugned order” is indeed erroneous and bad in law in as much as time limit is reckoned from date of “impugned rectification order” i.e. 18.10.2022 and not from date of service of order which date was 21.01.2023. The time limit u/s 249(2)(c ) of the Act is to be Page 5 of 7

Kaushalya Agarwal Trust - A.Y.2017-18 reckoned from date of service and not from date of order. We therefore hold that Ld. CIT(A) has erred in law by dismissing the 1st appeal U/s 246A as time barred. We therefore set aside the “impugned order”. Accordingly the matter is remand to Ld.

CIT(A) on denovo basis.

5.2 In the result appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purpose.

Order pronounced in open court on 30.06.2025.