M/S. IBEX PRODUCTS PVT. LTD.,CHENNAI vs. ACIT, CPC, GHAZIABAD
What did the Tribunal hold?
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeals, stating it was due to a misunderstanding of procedural provisions. The appeals were remitted back to the CIT(Appeals) for re-examination on merits.
What were the facts?
The assessee filed appeals against orders passed under Section 154 of the Income-tax Act, instead of Section 200A, leading to a nominal delay. The assessee initially filed a consolidated appeal for all quarters, then separate appeals.
What were the issues?
The primary issue was the maintainability of appeals filed against Section 154 orders instead of Section 200A orders, and whether the delay in filing should be condoned.
Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, ‘B’ BENCH, CHENNAI
Before: SHRI N.R.S. GANESAN & SHRI S. JAYARAMAN
आदेश /O R D E R
PER BENCH: These appeals of the assessee are directed against the respective orders of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-17, dated 30.05.2019 and pertain to assessment years 2013-14, 2014-15 and 2015-16.
Shri N. Arjun Raj, the Ld. representative for the assessee, submitted that the assessee filed one appeal against the order of Assessing Officer for all the four quarters for TDS return. The CIT(Appeals) found that the assessee filed appeal against the order passed under Section 154 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (in short 'the Act') and not against the order passed under Section 200A of the Act.
Therefore, there was a very nominal delay in filing all the appeals.
According to the Ld. representative, initially one consolidated appeal was filed for all the quarters. Subsequently, independent/separate appeals were filed for all the quarters.
On the contrary, Shri P. Muthushankar, the Ld. Departmental Representative, submitted that the assessee filed appeal against the order passed under Section 154 of the Act and not against the order passed under Section 200A of the Act. Unless there is an appeal against the order under Section 200A of the Act, the appeal filed against the order passed under Section 154 of the Act is not maintainable. The Ld. D.R. has very fairly submitted that the delay is due to filing of consolidated appeal for all the four quarters in a year.
Having heard the Ld. representative for the assessee and the Ld. D.R., this Tribunal finds that initially the assessee filed one appeal for all the four quarters. In other words, a consolidated appeal was filed for all the four quarters. Subsequently, the assessee filed independent appeals for each quarter. Therefore, there was a delay in filing the appeals. This Tribunal is of the considered opinion that this is due to misunderstanding of provisions of the Income-tax Act and the assessee cannot be penalized merely because the provisions of the Act with regard to procedure for filing of appeal was misunderstood. Moreover, the delay is very nominal in all appeals. Therefore, condoning the delay in filing the appeals and considering the appeals on merit may not prejudice the interests of Revenue in any way. This Tribunal is of the considered opinion that condonation of delay in filing the appeals and directing the CIT(Appeals) to dispose the appeals on merit would promote the cause of justice. Accordingly, delay in filing all the appeals before the CIT(Appeals) is condoned.
The Ld. D.R. now contends before this Tribunal that the appeal itself is not maintainable since the appeal was filed against the order passed by the CIT(Appeals) under Section 154 of the Act. This contention of the Ld. D.R. has to be examined by the CIT(Appeals) while considering the appeals on merit. Suffice to say that the delay in filing the appeals is condoned and all the appeals are remitted back to the file of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals). The CIT(Appeals) shall re-examine the appeals on merit and thereafter decide the same in accordance with law by passing a speaking order.
With the above observation, all the appeals filed by the assessee stand allowed for statistical purposes.
Order pronounced in the court on 17th October, 2019 at Chennai.
More judgments on Section 154
- Income Tax Officer, Jaipur vs Rakesh Kumar Malani, JaipurITA 1425/JPR/2026[2025-26]Status: Disposed21 Oct 2026AY 2025-26
- Income Tax Officer, Jaipur vs Anita Sharma, JaipurITA 1344/JPR/2026[2024-25]Status: Disposed21 Oct 2026AY 2024-25
- Ramtirath Bawa, Nagpur vs ITO Ward3(4), NagpurITA 327/NAG/2026[2015-16]Status: Disposed16 Oct 2026AY 2015-16
- Mohinder Singh, Nagpur vs ITO Ward 3(4), NagpurITA 322/NAG/2026[2015-16]Status: Disposed16 Oct 2026AY 2015-16
- Ramakrishna Reddy Makireddy, Hyderabad vs ACIT, Circle-5(1), HyderabadITA 70/HYD/2026[2007-08]Status: Disposed16 Oct 2026AY 2007-08
Recent GST High Court judgments
Search GST case law →- Shining Steel Through Its Proprietor Kartik Gupta vs. Union Of INDIA & Ors.Delhi · 27 Oct 2026
- M/S Redamancy World Through Its Proprietor Sanjay Kumar Goel vs. Central Board Of Indirect Taxes And Customs & Ors.Delhi · 27 Oct 2026
- M/S Arj Exim INDIA vs. Additional Commissioner Of CGST, Appeals-Ii, New Delhi And OrsDelhi · 27 Oct 2026
- The State Of Bihar Through The Commissioner Of State Tax vs. Kaushlendra KumarPatna · 27 Oct 2026
- Ayush Sureshchandra Shah vs. State Of GujaratGujarat · 27 Oct 2026