Loading judgment…
Facts
The assessee, an individual, filed her Income Tax Return for AY 2021-22 declaring an income of Rs. 5,78,070/-. The CPC processed the return under Section 143(1) and made an adjustment of Rs. 2,80,210/-, computing the total income at Rs. 8,58,280/-, which the assessee claimed related to interest on savings and agricultural income already accounted for. The assessee filed a belated appeal against this adjustment before the CIT(A) with a delay of 167 days, which the CIT(A) dismissed in limine without condoning the delay.
Held
The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) erred by dismissing the appeal in limine without considering the condonation of delay petition. Exercising principles of natural justice, the Tribunal condoned the delay of 167 days and remitted the matter back to the CIT(A) to decide the case on merits, providing the assessee a reasonable opportunity of being heard. The assessee was cautioned to cooperate in the proceedings.
Key Issues
Whether the CIT(A) was justified in dismissing the appeal in limine by refusing to condone a 167-day delay, and the validity of the CPC's adjustment under Section 143(1) for interest on savings and agricultural income.
Sections Cited
143(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
(�नधा�रण वष� / Assessment Year: 2021-22) Varudu Sujatha, Vs. Income Tax Officer, Saravakota, Ward-1, Srikakulam Dist. Srikakulam. PAN: AGYPV1948A (अपीलाथ�/ Appellant) (��यथ�/ Respondent) अपीलाथ� क� ओर से/ Appellant by : Sri GVN Hari, Advocate ��याथ� क� ओर से / Respondent by : Dr. Aparna Villuri, Sr. AR सुनवाई क� तार�ख / Date of Hearing : 11/08/2025 घोषणा क� तार�ख/Date of : 14/08/2025 Pronouncement O R D E R 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)-7, Delhi [“Ld. CIT(A)”] in DIN & Order No. ITBA/APL/S/250/2025- 26/1075894387(1), dated 30/04/2025 arising out of the order Varudu Sujatha passed U/s. 143(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 [“the Act”] for the AY 2021-22.
Brief facts of the case are that the assessee is an individual and filed her return of income for AY 2021-22 on 07/12/2021 admitting a total income of Rs. 5,78,070/-. The return of income filed by the assessee was processed U/s. 143(1) of the Act by the CPC and the Intimation U/s. 143(1) was issued on 08/07/2022 wherein the total income was computed at Rs. 8,58,280/- after making adjustment for the amount of Rs. 2,80,210/- as the same was mentioned in the tax audit report as any other items of income but the same was mentioned in Column No. 5(D) of Part A 01 in the return of income. The assessee submitted that the same was received towards interest on savings account and agricultural income. Since these items are admitted under the respective heads, it is not necessary to include these items in Part A 01 of the return of income. However, the CPC passed the Intimation U/s. 143(1) of the Act by making adjustment. Aggrieved by the Intimation passed U/s. 143(1) of the Act, the assessee preferred an appeal before the Ld. CIT(A) belatedly with a delay of 167 days.
Varudu Sujatha 3. On appeal, the Ld. CIT(A) did not condone the delay 167 days in filing the appeal and dismissed the appeal of the assessee in limine. Aggrieved by the order of the Ld. CIT(A), the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal by raising the following grounds of appeal:
1. The order of the Ld. CIT(A) is contrary to the facts and also the law applicable to the facts of the case.
2. The Ld. CIT(A) is not justified in dismissing the appeal in limine by refusing to condone the delay of 167 days in filing the appeal.
3. The Ld. CIT(A) is not justified in sustaining the addition of Rs. 2,80,210/- made by CPC U/s. 143(1) of the Act towards interest received by the appellant from savings bank and agricultural income of the appellant.
4. Any other grounds may be urged at the time of hearing.”
4. At the outset, it was the submission of the Ld. AR that the Ld. CIT(A) has not condoned the delay and dismissed the appeal of the assessee in limine. He further submitted that the assessee filed a petition for condonation of delay wherein it was categorically explained that the assessee filed for rectification of the Intimation passed U/s. 143(1) since the CPC did not appreciate the correct position by comparing the return of income and the audit report. He further submitted that the rectification order was passed on 22/12/2022 without rectifying the mistake.
Varudu Sujatha The assessee has chosen to prefer appeals against both the Intimation as well as the rectification order. In that process, the appeal against the Intimation order could be filed with a delay of 166 days. Therefore, the delay has been occurred but the Ld. CIT(A) without considering the explanation of the assessee, erroneously dismissed the appeal of the assessee. Therefore, he pleaded to condone the delay and remit the matter back to the file of the Ld. CIT(A) to dispose of the case on merits.
On the other hand, it was submission of the Ld. DR that the assessee failed to give a sufficient and reasonable cause for the delay of 167 days in filing the appeal and therefore, the Ld. CIT(A) had left with no option except dismissing the appeal. Therefore, she pleaded to uphold the order passed by the Ld. CIT(A).
We have heard both the sides and perused the orders of the Ld. Revenue Authorities as well as the material available on record. It is an admitted fact that the assessee had filed the petition for condonation of delay before the Ld. CIT(A) by categorically explaining the reasons for such delay of 167 days in filing the appeal before the Ld. CIT(A). However, the Ld. CIT(A) has not considered the delay condonation petition filed by the Varudu Sujatha assessee and dismissed the appeal in limine. In this situation, we are of the considered view that the Ld. CIT(A) ought to have decided the case on merits instead of dismissing the appeal in limine. Considering these facts and circumstances of the case and in order to meet the principles of natural justice, we are of the considered opinion that it is a fit case to condone the delay and to grant one more opportunity to the assessee. Accordingly, we hereby condone the delay of 167 days in filing the appeal before the Ld. CIT(A) and remit the matter back to the file of the Ld. CIT(A) with a direction to decide the case of merits and in accordance with law after affording a reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee. At the same breath, we also hereby caution the assessee to promptly co-operate before the Ld. CIT (A) in the proceedings failing which the Ld. CIT (A) shall be at liberty to pass appropriate order in accordance with law and merits based on the materials on the record. It is ordered accordingly.
In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes as indicated hereinabove.
Varudu Sujatha Pronounced in the open Court on 14th August, 2025. Sd/- Sd/- (एस बालाकृ�णन) (दु�वू� आर.एल रे�डी) (S.BALAKRISHNAN) (DUVVURU RL REDDY) लेखा सद�य/ACCOUNTANT MEMBER उपा�य� /VICE PRESIDENT Dated :14/08/2025 OKK - SPS आदेश की �ितिलिप अ�ेिषत /Copy of the order forwarded to:- 1. �नधा�रती/ The Assessee – Varudu Sujatha, 1, Aludu Village, Thogiri Post, Saravakota, Srikakulam District, Andhra Pradesh-532426. 2. राज�व/The Revenue –Income Tax Officer, Ward-1, O/o. ITO, Aayakar Bhavan, Palakonda Road, Srikakulam, Andhra Pradesh-532001.