Loading judgment…
Facts
The assessee, a trust, filed an appeal against the order of the Addl./Joint CIT(A) who dismissed the appeal due to a delay of 900 days. The assessee contended that if the COVID period was excluded, the delay was 235 days, and argued for condonation based on being a first-time filer and issues with the previous tax consultant.
Held
The Tribunal noted that the appeal was filed late even after the COVID period ended, and found no sufficient justification for the delay. The assessee's explanations, including issues with the previous tax consultant and the pandemic, were not considered sufficient cause for the delay.
Key Issues
Whether sufficient cause was shown for the delay in filing the appeal before the first appellate authority and the Tribunal.
Sections Cited
10(23C), 143(1), 250, 5
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, CUTTACK BENCH AT KOLKATA
Before: SHRI DUVVURU RL REDDY(KZ) & SHRI RAKESH MISHRA
PER RAKESH MISHRA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER:
This appeal filed by the assessee is against the order of the Addl/JCIT(A)-2, Gurugram [hereinafter referred to as the ‘Ld. Addl./Joint CIT(A)'] passed u/s 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) for AY 2016-17 dated 17.01.2025, I.T.A. No.: 166/CTK/2025 Assessment Year: 2016-17 Sadhana Foundation. which has been passed against the intimation u/s 143(1) of the Act, dated 31.03.2019. 2. The assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal raising the following grounds of appeal:
“1. For that the order of the form below is arbitrary, illegal and unjust both in fact and law, hence liable to be quashed and set aside.
For that the forum below erred in making computation through adjustment by exercising juri iction u/s 143(1) (a) of the IT Act without satisfying the juri iction conditions provided in the First and second proviso of the said section. Therefore, the order u/s 143(1)(a) of the IT act is without juri iction, hence liable to be quashed.
For that the forum below erred in computing income through adjustment without communicating the prior intimation of such adjustment and providing an opportunity of being heard. Therefore, the income computed in passing order u/s 143(1) (a) of the IT Act, by violating principles of natural justice deserves to be quashed. is illegal, not sustainable and 4. For that Ld. CIT(A) NFAC erred in dismissing the appeal in Limine by applying provisions of sec 5 of the Limitation Act without proper appreciation and without refuting the facts stated in the Condonation of petition and affidavit filed in support thereof. Therefore the impugned order is illegal and deserves to be quashed and set aside.
For that Ld. CIT(A) dismissing the appeal simply appreciating the technicality and not appreciating the merits of the case. Therefore, the impugned order passed by violating provisions of sec 250(4) & (6) is illegal not sustainable and deserves to be quashed and set aside.
For that the assessee craves the leave for any addition, alteration or modification of the grounds either before or at the time of hearing of the Appeal.”
Brief facts of the case are that the assessee is a trust and it is mentioned in the appeal order that the return of income was not filed by the assessee. However, it is noted that an intimation under section 143(1) was issued on 31 March 2019 in which the date of filing the return of income is mentioned as 24 September 2017. Aggrieved with the intimation, the assessee preferred an appeal before the Ld. CIT(A) I.T.A. No.: 166/CTK/2025 Assessment Year: 2016-17 Sadhana Foundation. and the Ld. Addl./Joint CIT(A) vide the impugned order dismissed the appeal as the appeal was delayed by 900 days and no satisfactory response was given for the delay in filing the appeal. The assessee had failed to give sufficient reason for the delay in filing the appeal when opportunities were given and as the condonation of delay was not granted, the appeal filed was not maintainable on the ground of delay alone and the appeal was dismissed in limine. Aggrieved with the order of the Ld. Addl./JCIT(A), the assessee has filed the appeal before the Tribunal.
Rival submissions were heard and the record and the submissions made have been examined. It was submitted before us by the Ld. AR that this was the first assessment year and the assessee had claimed exemption under section 10(23C) of the Act which was not allowed in the intimation under section 143(1) of the Act. The Ld. Addl./Joint CIT(A) dismissed the appeal as the same was delayed by 900 days and the Ld. AR submitted that if the COVID period is excluded, the delay is only of 235 days but the appeal was dismissed in limine. The intimation is dated 31 March 2019 but is stated to be digitally signed on 24 May 2019. The appeal was filed on 17 November 2021 and if the limitation for COVID period up to 15 March 2020 is excluded, the delay is much less. The Bench queried as to why the appeal was not filed up to 15 March 2020 but to this the Ld. AR submitted that the assessee was the first time return filer and could not take the help of the Counsel. It was noted that the appeal was filed late even after the COVID period had ended and there is no justification for the delay in filing the appeal after the end of the COVID period. Further, a perusal of the affidavit filed before the first appellate authority shows that the delay in filing the appeal is said to have happened due to assorted reasons including no I.T.A. No.: 166/CTK/2025 Assessment Year: 2016-17 Sadhana Foundation. genuine efforts being made by the ITO(E) to give the assessee an opportunity of being heard, not being appropriately advised by the erstwhile tax consultant in these regards and because of the ongoing once in a century COVID pandemic impacting the entire humanity. It is further stated that the assessee duly appointed a competent person being a Chartered Accountant to duly discharge the tax dues and optimally do the compliances. Despite having taken these measures, such mistakes had happened and it is stated in the affidavit that the assessee had not shown deliberate or wilful negligence in complying with the tax laws or appropriately engaging the income-tax authorities. It is further stated that being proactive, the assessee had ended the engagement with the previous tax consultant and had appointed another more competent counsel for duly advising the assessee and resolve the issues with the Income Tax Department. The assessee was advised by the new tax consultant to seek condonation of delay and file an appeal against the above-mentioned order which should have been filed within one month from receiving the intimation under section 143(1) of the Act. The reasons did not find favour with the Ld. Addl./Joint CIT(A) nor with the Bench as even the name of the erstwhile consultant is not mentioned in the affidavit filed before the Ld. Addl./Joint CIT(A). We, accordingly, do not find any merit in the case as no sufficient cause has been made out justifying the delay and the first appellate authority has relied upon the decisions of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Vedabai alias Vaijaantabai Naburao Patil vs Shantaram Baburao Patil 125 STC 375 SC and Basawaraj & Anr vs Special Land Acquisition Officer, order dated 22.08.2013 for dismissing the appeal of the assessee and as no sufficient cause has been made out before us as well, there is no merit in the case and the order of the I.T.A. No.: 166/CTK/2025 Assessment Year: 2016-17 Sadhana Foundation. Ld. Addl./Joint CIT(A) is hereby confirmed and all the grounds of appeal are dismissed.
In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed. Order pronounced in the open Court on 22nd May, 2025. [Duvvuru RL Reddy] [Rakesh Mishra] Vice President (KZ) Accountant Member Dated: 22.05.2025 Bidhan (P.S.) I.T.A. No.: 166/CTK/2025 Assessment Year: 2016-17 Sadhana Foundation. Copy of the order forwarded to:
Sadhana Foundation, MIG-11,27/1, Housing Board Colony, Chandrasekharpur, Bhubaneswar, Odisha, 751016. 2. ITO (Exemption), Bhubaneswar.
Addl/JCIT(A)-2, Gurugram.
CIT-
CIT(DR), Cuttack Bench, Cuttack.
Guard File. //// By order