FATHIMATHSUHARA,KOZHIKODE vs. ITO, WARD 1 & TPS, TIRUR

PDF · subscribers
ITA 291/COCH/2025Status: DisposedITAT Cochin08 May 2025AY 2020-21Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao (Accountant Member)3 pages
AI SummaryPartly Allowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal noted that the 507-day delay period was covered by the Supreme Court's order on the extension of limitation due to the Covid-19 pandemic. Consequently, the Tribunal remanded the matter back to the CIT(A) with a direction to condone the delay and adjudicate the appeal on its merits.

What were the facts?

The assessee filed a return claiming relief under Section 89, which was denied by the CPC under Section 143(1). Aggrieved, the assessee filed an appeal before the CIT(A) with a delay of 507 days. The CIT(A) dismissed the appeal in limine without condoning the delay.

What were the issues?

Whether the CIT(A) erred in dismissing the appeal in limine without condoning the delay of 507 days, especially considering the Supreme Court's order extending limitation periods during the COVID-19 pandemic.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 89,Section 143(1)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Cases cited in this judgment(1)Show list

Detected automatically from the text. The count shows how many other judgments on BharatTax rely on the same authority.

  • 438 ITR 296
    438 ITR 296 · 2021 · SC
    196 citing

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “SMC” BENCH, COCHIN

Before: Shri Inturi Rama Rao

Hearing: 05.05.2025

Asst.Year 2020-2021 Smt.Fathimath Suhara The Income Tax Officer Puthukudy House v. Ward 1 & TPS Ponmundam, Tirur Tirur. Malappuram – 676 106. PAN : ALUPP6544P. (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant by : --- None --- Respondent by : Smt.Leena Lal, Senior AR Date of Date of Hearing : 05.05.2025 Pronouncement : 08.05.2025 O R D E R This appeal filed by the assessee is directed against the order of the Addl. /Joint Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) [hereinafter “the CIT(A)”] dated 29.03.2025 for the assessment year 2020-2021.

2.

Briefly, the facts of the case are that the appellant is an individual. The return of income for the assessment year 2020-2021 was filed on 14.10.2020 disclosing a total income of Rs.12,74,560, after claiming relief u/s.89 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter “the Act”). The said return of income was passed by the CPC u/s.143(1) of the Act vide intimation dated 24.12.2020 denying the benefit of tax rebate u/s.89 of the Act.

3.

Being aggrieved by the above intimation, an appeal was filed before the CIT(A) contending that the denial of tax rebate u/s.89 of the . Smt.Fathimath Suhara. Act, without assigning any reasons as enumerated u/s.143(1) of the Act is not warranted. Further, the appellant filed the appeal before the CIT(A) with a delay of 507 days. The CIT(A) dismissed the appeal in limine, without condoning the delay in the absence of any petition seeking the condonation of delay.

4.

Being aggrieved, the appellant is in appeal before the Tribunal, in the present appeal. When the appeal was called upon, none appeared on behalf of the appellant, despite due service of notice. Therefore, I proceed to dispose of the appeal after hearing the learned Senior DR.

5.

I heard the learned Senior DR and perused the material available on record. At the outset, I find that the CIT(A) dismissed the appeal in limine without condoning the delay of 507 days. At para 5.4, the CIT(A) recorded the finding of fact that the appeal should have been filed by 23.01.2021, but actually filed on 14.06.2022, resulting a delay of 507 days. This period is covered under the Covid-19 pandemic. The Hon’ble Apex Court in Cognizance For Extension of Limitation reported in (2021) 438 ITR 296 (SC), keeping in view the difficulties faced by the citizens of the country, extended the limitation prescribed under various statutes up to 30th June, 2022. Since the period is covered by the above order of the Hon’ble Supreme Court, the CIT(A) ought to have condoned the delay and adjudicated the appeal on merits. I, therefore, remand the matter back to the file of the CIT(A) with a direction to condone the delay and adjudicate the issues in the appeal, in accordance with law, after affording a reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee.

6.

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee stands partly allowed.

Order pronounced on this 8th day of May, 2025.

More judgments on Section 89

All 65 judgments and leading authorities on Section 89 →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →