PRAKASH MANDHWANI,BHOPAL vs. CIT(A), NFAC
What did the Tribunal hold?
The Tribunal held that the first appeal filed by the assessee before the CIT(A) was valid. The reasoning was based on the assessee's submission and the agreement of the Revenue's representative. The Tribunal noted that the assessment order was passed on 23.03.2016 and served on 02.04.2016. The assessee filed a physical appeal on 25.04.2016 and subsequently e-filed it on 13.06.2016. The Tribunal acknowledged CBDT Circular No. 20/2016, which mandated e-filing of first appeals from 01.03.2016 and extended the deadline to 15.06.2016 to address system issues. Since the assessee's e-filing on 13.06.2016 was before the extended deadline of 15.06.2016, the appeal was considered to be filed within the permitted time. The CIT(A) was directed to treat the appeal as valid and adjudicate it on merits. The matter was restored to the file of the CIT(A) for this purpose. No issue was expressly left undecided.
What were the facts?
The assessee, Prakash Mandhwani, filed an appeal before the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) challenging an order dated 30.10.2024 passed by the CIT(A)-NFAC, Delhi. This order arose from an assessment order dated 23.03.2016 passed by the ITO, 3(3), Bhopal, under Section 143(3) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, for Assessment Year 2013-14. The assessee had initially declared a total income of Rs. 9,34,160/-, but the Assessing Officer determined it at Rs. 87,41,142/-. The CIT(A) dismissed the assessee's first appeal as delayed, finding a delay of approximately 42 days beyond the statutory period under Section 249(2). The assessee contended that the appeal was filed within the extended time granted by CBDT Circular No. 20/2016.
What were the issues?
1. Whether the first appeal filed by the assessee before the CIT(A) was within the permissible time limit as per Section 249(2) of the Act, considering the applicability of CBDT Circular No. 20/2016. Assessee's Contention: The assessee argued that the CIT(A) erred in treating the appeal as delayed. The assessment order was passed on 23.03.2016 and served on 02.04.2016. The assessee filed a physical appeal on 25.04.2016 and e-filed it on 13.06.2016. The assessee relied on CBDT Circular No. 20/2016, which extended the deadline for e-filing of first appeals to 15.06.2016 due to system glitches with mandatory e-filing from 01.03.2016. Therefore, the e-filing on 13.06.2016 was within the extended time, making the appeal valid. Revenue's Contention: The Revenue's representative agreed with the assessee's submission and prayer.
Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, INDORE BENCH, INDORE
Before: SHRI B.M. BIYANI
आदेश/ O R D E R
Per B.M. Biyani, A.M.:
Feeling aggrieved by order of first-appeal dated 30.10.2024 passed by learned Commissioner of Income-Tax (Appeals)-NFAC, Delhi [“CIT(A)”] which in turn arises out of assessment-order dated 23.03.2016 passed by learned ITO, 3(3), Bhopal u/s 143(3) of Income-tax Act, 1961 [“the Act”] for Assessment-Year [“AY”] 2013-14, the assessee has filed this appeal on the grounds as mentioned in Form No. 36 (Appeal Memo).
The background facts leading to present appeal are such that the assessee-individual filed return of AY 2013-14 declaring a total income of Rs. 9,34,160/-. The case was subjected to scrutiny assessment through notices u/s 143(2)/142(1) and the AO completed assessment vide order dated 23.03.2016 u/s 143(3) determining total income at Rs. 87,41,142/- after making certain additions. Aggrieved, the assessee carried matter in first- appeal before CIT(A). The CIT(A), however, dismissed assessee’s first-appeal in limine as un-admitted finding the same as delayed and not filed within the statutory time period specified in section 249(2) of the Act. Still aggrieved, the assessee has come in next appeal before us.
Ld. AR of assessee straightaway drew us to Para 1 of impugned order of CIT(A) to demonstrate certain undisputed basic data i.e. the assessment- order was passed on 23.03.2016; the same was served upon assessee on 02.04.2016; the assessee filed first-appeal to CIT(A) on 13.06.2016. Then, he drew us to Para 3 of impugned order wherein the CIT(A) has computed “01.05.2016” as last date for filing of appeal as per section 249(2) and thereafter observed a delay of approximate 42 days in filing of appeal before him.
Ld. AR next drew us to the Circular No. 20/2016 dated 26.05.2016 issued by CBDT, copy of same stands furnished at Page 18 of the documents filed at the time of filing this appeal. Referring to same, Ld. AR submitted that prior to 01.03.2016, the first-appeals could be filed manually
Page 2 of 4 but w.e.f. 01.03.2016, the e-filing of first-appeal was made mandatory.
However, there were certain glitches in the system and therefore the CBDT came out with aforesaid Circular extending the time-limit for e-filing of appeals upto 15.06.2016. He submitted that the assessee in present case originally filed physical appeal on 25.04.2016 (acknowledgement of physical filing is furnished at Page 14 of the documents filed at the time of filing this appeal) but thereafter e-filed the same to CIT(A) on 13.06.2016 which is before 15.06.2016 i.e. before the deadline set up by CBDT. Therefore, the first-appeal filed by assessee to CIT(A) was a valid appeal having been filed within the permitted time and the Ld. CIT(A) has inadvertently or wrongly treated the same as delayed. Ld. AR, therefore, prayed to restore this matter to the file of CIT(A) with a direction to treat assessee’s first appeal as valid and adjudicate the same on merit.
Ld. DR representing revenue instantly agreed to the submission and prayer of Ld. AR.
In view of above, we find that the first-appeal filed by assessee to CIT(A) was a valid appeal having been filed within the time set up by CBDT Circular. Therefore, we direct the CIT(A) to treat the asessee’s appeal as valid and adjudicate the same on merits. Accordingly, this matter is restored to the file of CIT(A).
Before parting, we appreciate the precise and to-the-point submission made by young counsel of assessee in a very lucid manner with reference to relevant documents and we also appreciate the fairness of Ld. DR of revenue in giving instant acceptance.
Resultantly, this appeal is allowed for statistical purpose.
Order pronounced in open court on 28/04/2025
More judgments on Section 249(2)
- Indrani Chatterjee, Kolkata vs I.T.O., Ward - 52(1), KolkataITA 2871/KOL/2026[2021-2022]Status: Disposed15 Oct 2026AY 2021-2022
- Tapan Mandal, Kolkata vs I.T.O., Ward - 52(1), KolkataITA 2870/KOL/2026[2021-2022]Status: Disposed15 Oct 2026AY 2021-2022
- Saroj Kumar Haldar, Kolkata vs I.T.O., Ward - 52(1), KolkataITA 2869/KOL/2026[2021-2022]Status: Disposed15 Oct 2026AY 2021-2022
- Saroj Kumar Haldar, Kolkata vs I.T.O., Ward - 52(1), KolkataITA 2868/KOL/2026[2020-2021]Status: Disposed15 Oct 2026AY 2020-2021
- Alok Pal, Etawah vs The Income Tax Officer, Ward 2(2)(5), EtawahITA 723/AGR/2026[2020-21]Status: Disposed14 Oct 2026AY 2020-21
Recent GST High Court judgments
Search GST case law →- Tvl. Annai Garden vs. The Commercial Tax Officer / The State Tax OfficerMadras · 15 Oct 2026
- Yadeshwar Mallekedi vs. The State Of TelanganaTelangana · 15 Oct 2026
- Manoj Kumar Das vs. The State Of BiharPatna · 15 Oct 2026
- M/S Superwealth Financial Enterprises Private Limited, Khordha vs. Joint Commissioner Good And Service Tax Central Excise, BhubaneswarOrissa · 15 Oct 2026
- Simanchal Sahoo vs. Commissioner Of CT And GST, Odisha, CuttackOrissa · 15 Oct 2026