Loading judgment…
Facts
The assessee challenged an order from the CIT(A) that dismissed their appeal for being filed late. The initial physical appeal was delayed by 44 days due to a consultant's accident. A subsequent electronic appeal was delayed by 1700 days due to procedural issues with e-filing directions from the CIT(A). The assessee also claimed errors in the original return regarding figures in the balance sheet, supported by a revised return and an accountant's affidavit.
Held
The Tribunal condoned the 1700-day delay in filing the electronic appeal, stating it was caused by the CIT(A)'s direction to e-file. The Tribunal also directed the Assessing Officer to consider the assessee's revised return and the accountant's affidavit regarding the alleged errors in the original filing.
Key Issues
Whether the delay in filing the appeal before the CIT(A) is condonable and whether the assessee's claims regarding errors in the original return should be considered on merit.
Sections Cited
143(3), 250
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, RAJKOT BENCH, RAJKOT
Before: DR. ARJUN LAL SAINI & SHRI DINESH MOHAN SINHA
सुनवाई क" तार"ख /Date of Hearing : 12/06/2025 घोषणा क" तार"ख /Date of Pronouncement : 25/08/2025 ORDER Per, Dr. Arjun Lal Saini, Accountant Member: By way of this appeal, the assessee has challenged correctness of the order dated 20.11.2024 passed by the learned CIT(A), in the matter of assessment under section 143(3) of the Income Tax Act 1961 ( in brief “the Act”), for the assessment year 2014-15. 2. Grievances raised by the assessee are as follows.
Jyotshna Bhikubhai Vadher 2 1.The order passed by the Ld. Commissioner of Income (Appeals), NFAC under section 250 of the Income Tax Act dated 20.11.2024 is bad in law as well as on the facts because Ld. CIT(A) without considering the merits for condoning the delay in filling appeal originally. As the original appeal was filed belated only by 44 days due to genuine reason of car accident of tax consultant Rajan Thakkar. And the delay of 1700 days in filling appeal electronically was due to procedural part by the order of Ld. CIT dated 27.07.2023 in giving direction to file appeal electronically.
Based on the facts and circumstance of the case, the order passed by the Id. CIT(A) is bad in law as Ld. CIT(A) has failed to consider that there is genuine delay in filling appeal as the regular tax consultant of the appellant has met with car accident and under the treatment for 2 months and in appointing new consultant to file appeal before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals). Moreover, the E-filed appeal is not accepted due to reason that as delay is more than 1700 days and the same is barred by limitation, which is without appreciating the fact that Ld. CIT(A) has taken 2305 days (04/04/2017 to 27/07/2023) to give direction to file appeal electronically. Hence the delay in filing appeal electronically is not attributable in any manner to the appellant.
3. Based on the facts and circumstance of the case, the order passed by the Id. CIT(A) and the Ld. AO bad in law as well as on the facts as none of the lower authorities have appreciated that Accountant of the appellant has put wrong figures in the balance sheet while filling the return of income for the A.Y. 2014-15. Appellant has also placed on the record, revised Income Tax Return, however Ld. AO has not considered the due to mere reason that instead of "Revised", "Original" was written on the computation.
Based on the facts and circumstance of the case Id. CIT(A) and the Ld. AO while passing the order has erred in law as well as on facts that appellant is engaged in small cooking business and having huge investment/asset of Rs.1,44,61,969/- is not possible as the figures are inflated inadvertently while filing return of income by accountant of the appellant and appellant was unaware about such error. In order to bring correct balance sheet on the records appellant has duly executed the affidavit, which was not considered during the assessment stage and during first appellate stage, as CIT(A) has not considered the merits of the case.
The Learned Income Tax officer and the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) has erred in law as well as on facts while not considering the fact that each year is a separate assessment year but the assessment of income cannot be made ignoring the fact already available on record for the past year as well as the subsequent years which are placed on record. On the basis of the past as well as subsequent year's record, you will appreciate that the appellant has no capacity or calibration to earn the allegedly wrong income which has been reported that invested in the alleged asset.
The Learned Income Tax officer and the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) has erred in law as well as on facts while not considering the fact that looking at the nature of business of the appellant i.e. business of cooking class, it is not possible to smash such a huge amount wealth in a short period of time. This fact is confirmed on para 2 of page 4 of the assessment order where-in AO writes that "one could not earn such a profit that such huge investment is made in the movable and immovable property". He further writes on para 3 of page 4 of the assessment order that "It appears that accounts are fabricated and you have not been able to produce any information and evidence....", Jyotshna Bhikubhai Vadher 3 An affidavit in respect of an error is filed, which has not been disbelieved or nothing has been brought on record against the affidavit of an accountant and assessee.
Based on the facts and circumstance of the case, the order passed by the Id. CIT(A) and by Ld. AO is bad in law as lower authorities are failed to consider that even accountant of the appellant has accepted his mistake and put forth the affidavit regarding mistake made by him in filing return of income of the appellant for the A.Y. 2014-15.
At the outset, the Ld. Counsel for the assessee, submitted before the Bench, that the assessee under consideration has filed the appeal physically before the ld. CIT(A) on 04.04.2017. To file the appeal electronically, the relevant notification was issued by the CBDT w.e.f. 1-4-2016. However, there were no much awareness about the Notification of the CBDT, among the taxpayers, with respect to filing of the appeal in electronic mode. Therefore, the assessee was unaware, whether the appeal is to be filed electronically before the ld. CIT(A), as per CBDT instructions. Since, the assessee has filed the appeal physically on 27.07.2023, therefore, the Commissioner of Income Tax directed the assessee to file appeal electronically. Therefore, the ld. CIT(A) has dismissed the appeal of the assessee, which was filed physically with the direction that the assessee should file the appeal electronically.
4. The ld. Counsel submitted that as per the direction of the ld. CIT(A), the assessee has filed the appeal electronically before the ld. CIT(A) which was late by 1700 days, (after excluding COVID-19 pandemic period), that is, after the order of the ld. CIT(A) dated 27.07.2023. Therefore, the appeal filed by the assessee electronically was dismissed by the ld. CIT(A), stating that the appeal was filed by the assessee, which was barred limitation of 1700 days. Therefore, the ld. CIT(A) did not condone the delay, and dismissed the appeal of the assessee, which was filed by the assessee electronically. The ld. Counsel for the assessee in this scenario prayed the Bench that justice should not be denied to the assessee, therefore, if the assessee has filed appeal manually, it should be Jyotshna Bhikubhai Vadher /RJT/2025 4 admitted, and then matter may be restored back to the file of AO for fresh adjudication, as the assessee wants to file some additional evidences. The ld. Counsel for the assessee pointed out that first appeal filed before the ld. CIT(A), which was filed physically, was also delayed by 44 days, and for that, the assessee has given sufficient reasons to condone the delay. However, the ld. CIT(A) did not admit the appeal of the assessee, as the assessee did not file the appeal electronically. 5.On the other hand, the ld. Sr. DR submitted that if the matter is remitted back to the file of lower authorities, then suitable cost may be imposed on the assessee, as the assessee has wasted the time and resources of the lower authorities.
6. We have heard both the parties and carefully gone through the submission put forth on behalf of the assessee along with the documents furnished and the case laws relied upon, and perused the fact of the case including the findings of the ld CIT(A) and other materials brought on record. We note that impugned order before us of Ld. CIT(A), is dated 20.11.2024, wherein learned CIT(A) did not condone the delay of 1700 days and dismissed the appeal of the assessee. We note that when the appeal was filed by the assessee for the first time on 04.04.2017, before ld. CIT(A), then at that point of time, there was no much awareness amongst the taxpayers, whether the appeal is to be filed before the ld. CIT(A), on electronic mode or not. Therefore, the assessee was in the impression that the appeal was to be filed physically, therefore, the assessee has filed appeal before the ld. CIT(A), physically, and the same was dismissed by the ld. CIT(A) in limine, stating that assessee has not filed the appeal electronically. The learned CIT(A) also directed the assessee to file the appeal electronically.
7. Then after, as per the direction of the learned CIT (A), the assessee has filed the appeal electronically, before the learned CIT(A), however, it was barred by limitation by 1700 days, (excluding Covid, 19 pandemic period), therefore