Loading judgment…
Facts
The assessee appealed against an assessment order for AY 2017-18, but the CIT(A) dismissed the appeal as time-barred, noting a delay of 1096 days. The assessee argued that the appeal was filed within the extended limitation period due to the Covid-19 pandemic and delayed receipt of the assessment order, disputing the CIT(A)'s calculation of delay.
Held
The Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s order and remanded the matter back to the CIT(A) for a fresh decision on merits. This restoration was conditional on the assessee depositing Rs. 10,000/- to the Prime Minister's National Relief Fund within a stipulated time. The CIT(A) was directed to provide adequate opportunity to the assessee irrespective of any delay.
Key Issues
Whether the CIT(A) erred in dismissing the appeal as time-barred, and if the delay in filing the appeal should be condoned given the Covid-19 pandemic and alleged delayed service of the assessment order.
Sections Cited
Section 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “C” BENCH, AHMEDABAD
Before: Shri Sanjay Garg & Annapurna Gupta
Year : 2017-18 Brijesh Hariprasadbhai Raval The ITO बनाम/ 5, Ruturaj Flat Ward-1(2) v/s. Nr. Circuit House Bhavnagar – 364 001 Waghawadi Road Hill Drive Bhavnagar – 364 002 "थायी लेखा सं./PAN: AMUPR 9193 D (अपीलाथ(/ Appellant) ()* यथ(/ Respondent) Assessee by : Shri Parimalsinh B. Parmar, AR Revenue by : Shri Abhijit, Sr.DR सुनवाई की तारीख/Date of Hearing : 28/01/2026 घोषणा की तारीख /Date of Pronouncement: 30/01/2026 आदेश/O R D E R Per Sanjay Garg, Judicial Member:
The present appeal has been preferred by the assessee against the order of the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi [hereinafter referred to as ‘CIT(A)’] dated 14/10/2025 passed u/s.250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) for the Assessment Year (AY) 2017-18. Brijesh Hariprasadbhai Raval vs. The ITO Asst. Year : 2017-18 2 2. The assessee is aggrieved by the action of the Ld. CIT(A) in dismissing the appeal of the assessee in limine holding the same as barred by limitation.
At the outset, the Ld. Counsel for the assessee has invited for our attention to the impugned order of the Ld. CIT(A) to submit that the Ld. CIT(A) has held that the appeal of the assessee was barred by limitation by 1096 days. The Ld. Counsel for the assessee has submitted that this observation of the Ld. CIT(A) was factually incorrect. The Ld. Counsel has given a chart to explain the number of days by which the appeal of the assessee before the Ld. CIT(A) was delayed.
3.1. On perusal of the said chart shows that the impugned assessment order was passed on 14/10/2019. The case of the assessee is that the copy of the said assessment order was received by the assessee on 08/03/2022. He has further explained that the due date for filing the appeal before the Ld. CIT(A) was 08/04/2022 by which date lock-down on account of Covid-19 pandemic had already been announced and as per the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court, the appeal could have been filed within the extended time, i.e. by 29/05/2022. 3.2. That the assessee had already filed the appeal on 14/04/2022 and, hence, under the circumstances, there was no delay in filing the present appeal before the Ld. CIT(A). The Ld. Counsel for the assessee has further explained that even otherwise, the maximum delay in filing the appeal was seven days, i.e. 08/04/2022 to 14/04/2022.
The Ld. Counsel for the assessee has further submitted that even it is assumed that the assessment order was served upon the assessee on Brijesh Hariprasadbhai Raval vs. The ITO Asst. Year : 2017-18 14/10/2019 itself, and even then the limitation stopped running from 15/03/2020 as per the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court and, therefore, the delay in filing the appeal at the maximum can be said to be 120 days only, i.e. 14/11/2019 to 15/03/2020.
The Ld. Counsel has submitted that assessee has a fair case on merits. He has further furnished an affidavit of the assessee Shri Brijesh Hari Prasad Bhai Raval, wherein it has been explained that the assessee had duly approached its Chartered Accountant (CA) for filing the appeal in time, but due to certain compulsions due to Covid-19 pandemic, the appeal could not be filed by the concerned CA in time.
Considering the aforesaid submissions, in our view, the interests of justice will be well-served if the assessee be given an opportunity to present his case before the Ld. CIT(A), however, subject to imposition of some reasonable costs. The impugned order of the Ld. CIT(A) is, accordingly, set aside and the matter is restored to the file of the Ld. CIT(A) with a direction to decide the appeal of the assessee on merits, after giving adequate opportunity of hearing to the assessee to present his case, however, subject to payment of a cost of Rs.10,000/- to be deposited in the Prime Minister’s National Relief Fund. The assessee will produce the receipt of such deposit before the CIT(A). Subject to fulfilment of the above condition, the impugned order of the Ld. CIT(A) is set aside and the matter is restored to the file of the Ld.CIT(A) with a direction to decide the matter on merits, irrespective of the fact that there was any delay in filing the appeal of the assessee before him. Needless to say, that the Ld.CIT(E) will give proper and adequate opportunity to the assessee to present his case. Brijesh Hariprasadbhai Raval vs. The ITO Asst. Year : 2017-18
With the above observations, the appeal of the assessee is treated as allowed for statistical purposes.