RAVINDER NATH GOEL,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-47(1), NEW DELHI
What did the Tribunal hold?
The Tribunal held that the delay in filing the appeal before the Ld. CIT(A) should be condoned. The matter was remitted back to the Ld. CIT(A) to decide afresh after giving the assessee an adequate opportunity of being heard.
What were the facts?
The assessee, a resident individual, earned salary income from USA during AY 2021-22. The assessee filed the return of income declaring taxable income and claimed foreign tax credit, but the CPC passed an intimation order demanding tax, including interest, after disregarding the claimed relief.
What were the issues?
Whether the delay in filing the appeal before the Ld. CIT(A) was sufficiently caused and should be condoned for a fresh adjudication of the matter.
Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?
Section 89,Section 90,Section 143(1),Section 154,Section 234A,Section 234B,Section 234C
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, DELHI BENCH ‘A’: NEW DELHI
Order
: 22.04.2025 O R D E R
PER S.RIFAUR RAHMAN,ACCOUNTANT MEMBER :
The assessee has filed appeal against the order of the Learned Addl./Joint Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-1, Jaipur [“Ld. JCIT(A)”, for short] dated 18.03.2024 for the Assessment Year 2021-22. Brief facts of the case are, the assessee is a resident individual being a 2. salaried employee with Genpact India Pvt. Ltd. During AY 2021-22, the assessee was also working in United States of America (USA) for Genpact LLC and was inter alia in respect of salary income from USA during the assessment year under consideration amounting to Rs.22,35,787 which suffered withholding taxes in USA. The assessee filed return of income for the year under consideration on 30.12.2021 declaring taxable income of Rs.1,35,76,760/- and relief u/s 89 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (for short ‘the Act’) instead of section 90 of the Act amounting to Rs.4,92,346/-. The assessee also filed Form 67 declaring income from outside India amounting to Rs.22,35,787/- and claimed foreign tax credit outside India amounting to Rs.4,92,346. Thereafter, CPC has passed intimation order on 22.03.2022 disregarding the relief u/s 89 of the Act amounting to Rs.4,92,346/- and intimating impugned demand of Rs.5,91,100/- which included interest u/s 234A/234B/234C. In response to the said intimation, assessee filed rectification request u/s 154 of the Act on 20.06.2022 for recertification of mistake. Thereafter, CPC has processed rectification request with demand order amounting to Rs.5,91,000/- on 20.06.2022. Aggrieved against the above order, assessee preferred an appeal before 3. the ld. JCIT (A). Ld. JCIT (A) observed that the intimation u/s 143(1) was passed on 22.03.2022 while the appeal was filed on 15.09.2022 belatedly. Ld. JCIT (A), relying on various judgments, held that the delay in fling the appeal is not condoned as no “sufficient cause” has been shown for the assessee’s failure to file the appeal within the prescribed period of limitation, hence the appeal sought to be instituted belatedly is hereby not admitted and accordingly dismissed as not maintainable.
Aggrieved against the above order, assessee is in appeal before us.
Considered the rival submissions and material placed on record. After going through the submissions made by the assessee before us and in the interest of justice, we are of the considered view that the delay in filing the appeal before the ld. CIT (A) is to be condoned and the matter is to be remitted back to ld. CIT (A). Accordingly, we condone the delay in filing the appeal and remit the matter back to ld. CIT (A) to decide afresh, after giving adequate opportunity of being heard. We also direct assessee to make proper submissions and appear before the ld.CIT (A) on the date of hearing and cooperate with the tax authorities. Accordingly, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes.
More judgments on Section 89
- Nirmala Kaushik, Delhi vs Income Tax Assessment Unit, DelhiITA 5301/DEL/2026[2019-20]Status: Disposed5 Aug 2026AY 2019-20
- Suresh Yashwant Awar, Igatpuri vs Assisstant Commissioner of Income Tax…ITA 2660/PUN/2025[2016-17]Status: Disposed12 Jun 2026AY 2016-17
- Ram Dattatray Kaldate, Aurangabad vs Income Tax Officer Ward 1(1), AurangabadITA 2177/PUN/2025[2019-20]Status: Disposed9 Jun 2026AY 2019-20
- Prakash Sukhdeo Sonawane, Aurangabad vs Income Tax Officer, Ward 1(1), AurangabadITA 2180/PUN/2025[2019-20]Status: Disposed8 Jun 2026AY 2019-20
- Sunil Kumar Srivastava, Auraiya vs ACIT Circle-1, AgraITA 162/AGR/2018[2014-15]Status: Disposed5 Jun 2026AY 2014-15
Recent GST High Court judgments
Search GST case law →- Ankil Jagdishchandra Kholwadwala vs. Union Of INDIA And AnrBombay · 22 Oct 2026
- Fasil Hussain Shah vs. Ut Of J And K Th Commissioner Secretary TO Government Finance Department And OthersJammu and Kashmir and Ladakh · 21 Oct 2026
- M/S. Devkinandan Traders vs. State Of U.P. And AnotherAllahabad · 21 Oct 2026
- M/S Dixit Medical Agencies vs. State Of U.P. And AnotherAllahabad · 21 Oct 2026
- Sukant Kumar vs. Union Of INDIA And 6 OthersAllahabad · 21 Oct 2026