KUDUMBI MAHAJANA SABHA,PUTHUVYPE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER,EXEMPTION WARD, KOCHI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 730/COCH/2024Status: DisposedITAT Cochin28 January 2025AY 2017-18Bench: SHRI INTURI RAMA RAO (Accountant Member)3 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal found that the appellant's claim of non-receipt of intimation was uncontroverted by the department. Therefore, the CIT(A) was not justified in refusing to condone the delay and admit the appeal on merits. The matter is remanded back to the CIT(A) for fresh consideration.

What were the facts?

The appellant, an unregistered society, filed its return of income for AY 2017-18, which was processed under Section 143(1) resulting in tax levied at the maximum marginal rate. Subsequently, the appellant filed an appeal before the CIT(A) after a delay of 6 years, asserting non-receipt of the intimation. The CIT(A) refused to condone this delay.

What were the issues?

Whether the CIT(A) erred in refusing to condone a 6-year delay in filing an appeal, especially when the appellant's claim of non-receipt of intimation was not disputed by the department.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 143(1)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, COCHIN BENCH

Before: SHRI INTURI RAMA RAO, AM

For Respondent: Smt. Leena Lal, Sr. D.R
Hearing: 16.01.2025Pronounced: 28.01.2025

O R D E R This appeal filed by the assessee is directed against the order of the National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi [CIT(A)] dated 17.05.2024 for Assessment Year (AY) 2017-18.

2.

Brief facts of the case are that the appellant is an unregistered society. The return of income for AY 2017-18 was filed on 14.03.2018. The said return of income was processed u/s. 143(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (the Act) vide intimation dated 06.08.2018 without making any adjustment to the returned income. However, the CPC levied tax at maximum marginal rate of tax.

Kudumbi Mahajana Sabha 3. Being aggrieved, an appeal was filed before the CIT(A) after lapse of a period of 6 years from the date of intimation. The appellant had stated that it had not received the intimation through e- mail and soon after when it had come to know about the intimation, immediately the appeal was filed. Thus, it was submitted that there was no delay in filing the appeal. However, the CIT(A) proceeded to hold that there was a delay of 6 years from the date of intimation. Accordingly he refused to condone the delay of 6 years in the absence of sufficient reasons for the delay.

4.

Being aggrieved, the appellant is in appeal before the Tribunal in the present appeal.

5.

I heard the rival contentions of both the parties and perused the material available on record. The only issue that requires to be determined by me in the present appeal is whether there was delay in filing the appeal before the CIT(A) as held by the JCIT(A)-12, Mumbai. It is the contention of the appellant that the intimation dated 06.08.2018 was not received either through email or through physical service. This fact remains uncontroverted by the JCIT(A). In the absence of any evidence to the contrary, the CIT(A) ought not have held that there was delay in filing the appeal. It was not justified in refusing to admit the appeal for adjudication on merits. Therefore, the matter is remand back to the file of the CIT(A) for de novo consideration.

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →