Loading judgment…
Facts
The assessee filed an appeal against the Ld. CIT(Appeals)/NFAC order for AY 2018-19, which was 27 days time-barred, leading to a condonation petition. The CIT(A)/NFAC had dismissed the assessee's appeal, noting that an appeal against an intimation under section 143(1) becomes infructuous once a full assessment order under section 143(3) is passed for the same assessment year.
Held
The Tribunal condoned the 27-day delay, acknowledging the reasons were circumstantial and not malicious. However, it upheld the CIT(A)/NFAC's finding that the appeal against the section 143(1) intimation was indeed infructuous, as a subsequent assessment under section 143(3) had been completed, subsuming the earlier intimation. Consequently, the assessee's appeal was dismissed.
Key Issues
Whether an appeal against an intimation u/s 143(1) is maintainable after a subsequent assessment order u/s 143(3) has been passed for the same assessment year, and whether the delay in filing the appeal should be condoned.
Sections Cited
Section 143(1), Section 143(3)
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, RAIPUR BENCH, RAIPUR
Before: SHRI PARTHA SARATHI CHAUDHURY & SHRI ARUN KHODPIA
आदेश / ORDER
PER PARTHA SARATHI CHAUDHURY, JM:
The captioned appeal preferred by the assessee emanates from the order of the Ld.CIT(Appeals)/NFAC, dated 07.02.2025 for the assessment year 2018-19 as per the grounds of appeal on record.
At the very outset, the Ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted that the appeal is time barred by 27 days. Elaborating the reasons leading to the said delay, the Ld. Counsel has filed condonation petition a/w. affidavit.
The Ld. Sr. DR did not file any counter affidavit for objecting the condonation of delay nor could place on record any evidence to suggest that such delay has been caused due to deliberate conduct of the assessee.
After perusing the condonation petition a/w. affidavit, we are of the considered view that the reasons for such delay were absolutely circumstancial and they are not in any way attributing any malafide or deliberate conduct of the assessee, if any for causing such delay. At the same time a liberal and judicious approach must be adopted also relying on the judgments of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the cases of Vidya Shankar Jaiswal Vs. ITO, Ward-2, Ambikapur, Civil Appeal Nos……………../2025 [Special Leave Petition (Civil) Nos. 26310- 26311/2024, dated 31.01.2025 and Inder Singh Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh, Civil Appeal No…………/2025, Special Leave Petition (Civil) No.6145 of 2024, dated 21st March, 2025.
Coming to the merits of the matter, the Ld. CIT(Appeals)/NFAC held and observed as follows: “Decision: - Here the assessee has filed appeal against order u/s.143(1) dated 16.10.2019 pertaining to A.Y.2018-19. However, on perusal of the submissions and the details on record, it is gathered that the order u/s.143(3) dated 13.03.2021 was also passed and further CIT(A) order was also passed wherein additions made in assessment order were upheld. Since the order u/s.143(3) has been passed, the order u/s.143(1) does not remain valid and moreover the appeal order has also been passed. Therefore, assessee has wrongly filed the appeal and misleading if done intentionally) the department. Hence, technically the present appeal becomes infructuous and accordingly the same is dismissed.”
The Ld. Counsel for the assessee could not refute the aforesaid facts on record and it is a matter of common knowledge that once the assessment was framed u/s.143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short ‘the Act’) then earlier intimation issued u/s.143(1) of the Act gets subsumed in the said subsequent assessment. This fact is admitted by the Ld. Sr. DR. We do not find any infirmity in the order of the Ld. CIT(Appeals)/NFAC which is upheld.
As per the above terms grounds of appeal raised by the assessee are dismissed.
In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed.
Order pronounced in the open court on 25th day of June, 2025.