KAUSHLYA CHAUDHARY,GURUGRAM vs. ITO, WARD-2(2), GURUGRAM
Facts
The assessee's assessment for AY 2019-20 involved a disallowance of Rs. 2,76,71,650/- claimed as exemption on the sale of land, which the AO deemed not agricultural and not compulsorily acquired, leading to a penalty under section 270A of the Income Tax Act. The CIT(A) subsequently dismissed the assessee's appeal, citing a 54-day delay in filing it.
Held
The Tribunal found that the appeal filed before the CIT(A) was not barred by limitation, referencing a Supreme Court order that extended limitation periods. Therefore, the CIT(A) was not justified in dismissing the appeal on this ground. The case was set aside and remanded to the CIT(A) for a fresh decision on merits after re-examining the limitation issue.
Key Issues
Whether the appeal filed before the CIT(A) was barred by limitation, given the Supreme Court's order on extended limitation periods.
Sections Cited
Section 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, Section 270A of the Income Tax Act, 1961
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, DELHI BENCH ‘C’: NEW DELHI
Before: SHRI KUL BHARAT & SHRI AVDHESH KUMAR MISHRA
PER AVDHESH KUMAR MISHRA, AM This appeal for the Assessment Year (In Short, the ‘AY’) 2019-20 filed by the assessee is directed against the order dated 11.02.2024 passed by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), New Delhi [In Short ‘the CIT(A)’].
ITA No.1538/Del/2024
The brief facts of the case relevant for deciding this appeal are that the assessment of the appellant/assessee of the relevant year was completed, at income of Rs.2,87,70,330/-, vide order dated 26.09.2021 passed under section 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (In Short, the ‘Act’). In the said assessment order, the AO disallowed the claim of exemption of Rs. 2,76,71,650/- on the reasoning that the appellant/assessee failed to establish that the said land was agricultural land in nature and it was compulsorily acquired by the Government. Later, the penalty of Rs.49,75,144/- was levied under section 270A of the Act on the disallowance of the claim of exemption of Rs. 2,76,71,650/-. On appeal, the CIT(A) dismissed the appeal on the reasoning that it was filed beyond the specified time as there was delay of 54 days.
At the outset, the Ld. AR submitted that this appeal was filed within the specified time in view of the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court order dated 10.01.2022 in MA No.21 of 2022 in MA No.665 of 2021 in suo-motu Writ Petition (C), wherein the Hon’ble Supreme Court had directed that the period from 23.03.2020 to 28.02.2022 should be excluded for the purpose of limitation in respect of all judicial and quasi-judicial proceedings with further period of 90 days from 01.03.2022 should be
ITA No.1538/Del/2024
available for filing appeal. Hence, the Ld. AR prayed for restoring the matter back to the CIT(A) for deciding the case on merit. To which the Ld. DR seemed in agreement.
We have heard both the parties and perused the material available on record. We find force in the arguments of the Ld. AR that the appeal in this case filed before the CIT(A) was not barred by limitation and therefore, the CIT(A) was not justified in dismissing the appeal on limitation issue. Further, the quantum appeal of the appellant/assessee of the relevant year was also restored back to the CIT(A) vide order dated 29.09.2024 in ITA No.1395/Del/2024. Therefore, in the interest of justice and considering all the afore-stated facts & observations, we are of the considered view that it is fit case to restore the matter back to the file of the CIT(A) for deciding the appeal on merit after deciding the issue that whether the said appeal was not barred by limitation as above. Hence, without offering any comment on merit, we order so. Accordingly, this appeal is set aside and restored back to the file of the CIT(A) to decide it afresh as above after affording the reasonable opportunity of being heard to the appellant/assessee.
ITA No.1538/Del/2024
In view of the above, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced in open Court on 29th July, 2024.
Sd/- Sd/- (KUL BHARAT) (AVDHESH KUMAR MISHRA) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Dated:29th/07/2024 Binita, Sr. PS Copy forwarded to: 1. Appellant 2. Respondent 3. CIT 4. CIT(Appeals) 5. CIT-DR ASSISTANT REGISTRAR ITAT, NEW DELHI
