Loading judgment…
Facts
The assessee mistakenly declared a higher income of Rs. 46,12,440/- instead of Rs. 28,27,122/- in the ITR for AY 2016-17. An intimation U/s 143(1) was issued on 30/05/2018. The assessee filed an appeal U/s 246A(1)(a) with a delay of over 5 years against this intimation, claiming the intimation was never received until a demand notice was issued.
Held
The Ld. Addl./JCIT(A)-3 dismissed the assessee's appeal due to an un-condoned delay of over 5 years, citing non-maintainability under section 249(2). The ITAT upheld this decision, finding that the assessee failed to establish sufficient cause for the extensive delay in filing the appeal.
Key Issues
Whether the delay of over 5 years in filing the appeal against the intimation U/s 143(1) should be condoned, and if the assessee demonstrated sufficient cause for such delay.
Sections Cited
143(1), 246A(1)(a), 249(2), 139(1)
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, VISAKHAPATNAM BENCH, VISAKHAPATNAM
Before: SHRI DUVVURU RL REDDY, HON’BLE & SHRI S BALAKRISHNAN, HON’BLE
PER DUVVURU RL REDDY, Vice President:
This appeal filed by the assessee is against the order of the Learned Addl / Joint Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-3, Ahmedabad [“Ld. CIT(A)-NFAC”] in DIN & Order No. ITBA/APL/S/250/2024-25/1067578405(1), dated 13/08/2024 arising out of the order passed U/s.143(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 [“the Act”] for the AY 2016-17. 2
Brief facts of the case are that the assessee is an individual filed his return of income on 31/03/2018 declaring a total income of Rs. 46,12,440/-. While processing the return of income U/s. 143(1) of the Act, the CPC / AO has accepted the income declared by the assessee and passed Intimation U/s. 143(1) of the Act, dated 30/05/2018. Thereafter, the assessee claimed that the total income of Rs. 46,12,440/- was wrongly taken by the assessee instead of Rs. 28,27,122/- at the time of filing of return of income and filed an appeal U/s. 246A(1)(a) of the Act with a delay of more than 05 years.
On appeal, the Ld. Addl./JCIT(A)-3, Ahmedabad dismissed the appeal of the assessee by holding that the assessee filed the appeal on 21/09/2023 after more than 5 years of passing of intimation. The Ld. Addl./JCIT(A)-3, Ahmedabad further observed that the request for condonation of delay is rejected as the same is not maintainable in view of the provisions of section 249(2) of the Act. Aggrieved by the order of the Ld. Addl./JCIT(A)-3, Ahmedabad, the assessee filed the present appeal before the Tribunal by raising the following grounds of appeal:
3 “1. That the appellant has wrongly declared the total income in the return filed U/s. 139(1) at Rs. 46,12,440/- instead of the correct income of Rs. 28,27,122/- after considering eligible deduction U/s. Chapter VI-A.
That the tax of Rs. 6,93,331/- was duly deducted by the employer as TDS as per Form-16 and the same is fully reflected in Form 26AS. Thus, no further tax was payable.
That the CPC has processed the return U/s. 143(1) accepting the erroneously declared income and raised a demand of Rs. 7,70,230/- with interest of Rs. 2,40,994/- aggregating to Rs. 10,11,224/- which is wholly unjustified.
That the intimation U/s. 143(1) dated 30/05/2018 was never received by the appellant until 14/09/2023, when a demand notice was issued by the juri ictional AO. The appellant filed the appeal within a week, on 21/09/2023. 5. That the Ld. CIT(A) erred in law and on facts in refusing to condone the delay in filing the appeal, despite sufficient cause having been demonstrated by the appellant.
That the Ld. CIT(A) failed to appreciate that the error in ITR filing was a genuine inadvertent mistake and the appellant had proactively responded to the demand by filing a detailed reply and grievance, including correct income computation, Form-16 and Form 26AS.
That the Ld. CIT(A) erred in not adjudicating the case on merits and in failing to provide relief despite clear documentary evidence showing the correct income and tax paid.
That the dismissal of appeal solely on technical ground of delay, without considering merit or providing opportunity of hearing, violates the principles of natural justice.
That the appellant prays that in the interest of justice, the delay in filing the appeal before CIT(A) be condoned, and the matter be decided in favour of appellant on merits.
The appellant craves leave to amend, alter, add to, or withdraw any of the foregoing grounds of appeal at the time of hearing.”
Before us, it was the submission of the assessee that the Ld. Addl./JCIT(A)-3, Ahmedabad failed to condone the delay of 05 Addl./JCIT(A)-3, Ahmedabad and the assessee has failed to give sufficient reasons to condone the delay and therefore, the Ld. Addl./JCIT(A)-3, Ahmedabad dismissed the appeal of the assessee. The Ld. DR further submitted that even before the ITAT, the assessee did not establish the sufficient cause to condone the delay of more than 05 years. Therefore, she pleaded to uphold the orders of the Ld. Addl./JCIT(A)-3, Ahmedabad.
We have heard both sides and perused the material available on record as well as the orders of the Ld. Revenue Authorities. It is an undisputed fact that after getting the Intimation order U/s. 143(1) of the Act, if any grievance is there, the assessee should have filed a rectification petition or appeal. It is also not disputed that the appeal was instituted after more than 05 years from the date of passing of Intimation order dated 30/05/2018. The Ld. Addl./JCIT(A)-3, Ahmedabad relied on the ITAT, Chennai Bench decision in the case of JCIT vs. Tractors and Farm Equipment Limited wherein it was held as under:
“7. The delay cannot be condoned simply because the appellant's case is hard and calls for sympathy or merely out of benevolence to the party
5 Anjan Dasgupta vs. DCIT seeking relief. In granting the indulgence and condoning the delay it must be proved beyond the shadow of doubt that the appellant was diligent and was not guilty of negligence whatsoever. The sufficient cause within the contemplation of the limitation provision must be a cause which is beyond the control of the party invoking the aid of the provisions. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Ramlal v. Rewa Coalfields Ltd. has held that the cause for the delay in filing the appeal which by due care and attention could have been avoided cannot be a sufficient cause within the meaning of the limitation provision.”
In view of the above discussion, the Ld. Addl./JCIT(A)-3,
Ahmedabad rejected the assessee’s plea for condonation of delay and dismissed the appeal as not-maintainable in view of the provisions of section 249(2) of the Act. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, we are of the considered view that the assessee miserably failed to establish the sufficient cause to condone the delay of more than 05 years before the Ld. Addl./JCIT(A)-3, Ahmedabad. In the absence of sufficient cause and by relying on the decision of the Hon’ble ITAT, Chennai Pronounced in the open Court on 04th September, 2025. (एस बालाकृ"णन) (दु"वू" आर.एल रे"डी) (S.BALAKRISHNAN) (DUVVURU RL REDDY) लेखा सद"य/ACCOUNTANT MEMBER उपा"य" /VICE PRESIDENT Dated :04/09/2025 OKK - SPS आदेश की "ितिलिप अ"ेिषत /Copy of the order forwarded to:-
"नधा"रती/ The Assessee – Anjan Dasgupta, D-163, Westend Heights, Golf Course Road, DLF Phase-5, Gurgaon, Hartyana-122002. 2. राज"व/The Revenue – DCIT, Circle-1(1), Guntur, Andhra Pradesh- 522001. 3. The Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, 4.आयकर आयु"त (अपील)/ The Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals),
"वभागीय ""त"न"ध, आयकर अपील"य अ"धकरण, "वशाखापटणम/ DR, ITAT, Visakhapatnam 6.गाड" फ़ाईल / Guard file
आदेशानुसार / BY ORDER
Sr. Private Secretary ITAT, Visakhapatnam