MANDI SAKSHARTA EVUM JANVIKAS SAMITI,MANDI vs. ADDL. CIT, CPC, , BANGALORE

PDF · subscribers
ITA 714/CHANDI/2024Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh03 February 2026AY 2018-19Bench: SHRI RAJPAL YADAV (Vice President), SHRI MANOJ KUMAR AGGARWAL (Accountant Member)3 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal set aside the order of the CIT(A) and remanded the appeal back to the CIT(A). This was to enable the assessee to seek the appropriate remedy under Section 119(2)(b) from the proper forum, with the final disposition of the appeal dependent on the outcome of that application.

What were the facts?

The assessee filed its income tax return late for AY 2018-19 and subsequently contended that it had not filed the return properly, omitting to claim certain expenses. The CIT(A) denied relief, stating that the assessee's only recourse was to file an application to the Board under Section 119(2)(b) for condonation of delay in filing a revised return, which was not within the CIT(A)'s jurisdiction.

What were the issues?

Whether the CIT(A) erred in not granting relief for omitted expenses, directing the assessee to seek remedy under Section 119(2)(b), and whether the matter should be remanded for this purpose.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 143(1),Section 119(2)(b)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “B” BENCH, CHANDIGARH

Before: HON’BLE SHRI RAJPAL YADAV & HON’BLE SHRI MANOJ KUMAR AGGARWAL, AM

Hearing: 02.02.2026Pronounced: 03.02.2026

(िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2018-19) Mandi Saksharta Evum Janvikas Samiti Addl. CIT बनाम/ Saksharta Bhawan Mandi (T), Mandi H.O. CPC, Bengaluru Vs. Himachal Pradesh India – 175001 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./PAN/GIR No. AAAJM-0214-C (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (""थ" / Respondent) अपीलाथ"कीओरसे/ Appellant by : Sh. Vigyan Prakash Arora (CA) – Ld. AR ""थ"कीओरसे/Respondent by : Sh. Dr. Ranjit Kaur (Addl. CIT) - Sr. DR सुनवाईकीतारीख/Date of Hearing : 02.02.2026 घोषणाकीतारीख /Date of Pronouncement : 03.02.2026 आदेश / O R D E R Manoj Kumar Aggarwal (Accountant Member) 1. Aforesaid appeal by assessee for Assessment Year (AY) 2018- 19 arises out of an order of learned Addl. / Joint Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-10, Mumbai [CIT(A)] dated 13-02-2024 in the matter of an intimation issued by CPC u/s 143(1) on 04-03-2020. The registry has noted delay of 66 days in the appeal. Considering the background of the assessee, the delay is condoned. Having heard rival submissions, the appeal is disposed-off as under.

2 Assessment Year: 2018-19 2. Upon perusal of impugned order, it could be seen that the assessee filed return of income on 30-10-2018 declaring income of Rs.105.83 Lacs as against due date of 30-09-2018. The CPC accepted the return of income. However, the assessee preferred further appeal on the ground that the assessee did not file the return form properly and omitted to file expenses in the relevant columns of the return of income. The Ld. CIT(A) observed that the return was accepted by CPC as such. The only remedy with the assessee was to file revised return by resorting to the provisions of Sec.119(2)(b) by making an application to the Board. The condonation of delay was not in the domain of first appellate authority. Accordingly, the relief as claimed by the assessee was not allowed. Aggrieved, the assessee is in further appeal before us.

3.

From the facts, it is quite clear that the returned income has been accepted by CPC. If the return was not filed correctly then the assessee was to file a revised return of income which was apparently not done within the prescribed time. In such an eventuality, one of the recourses as available with the assessee would be to avail appropriate remedy u/s 119(2)(b) as rightly held by Ld. CIT(A). Therefore, we set aside the impugned order and restore the appeal back to the file of Ld. CIT(A) to enable the assessee to seek such a remedy from appropriate forum. The appeal shall be disposed-off by considering the outcome of the said application. The assessee may seek appropriate remedy as deemed fit / advised to lay claim on the revised income.

3 Assessment Year: 2018-19

More judgments on Section 119(2)(b)

All 980 judgments and leading authorities on Section 119(2)(b) →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →