Loading judgment…
Facts
The assessee challenged an intimation issued under Section 143(1) for AY 2018-19, primarily concerning a late deposit of PF/ESI amounting to Rs.1,20,38,327. There was a 113-day delay in filing the appeal before the Tribunal, which the assessee's Chartered Accountant admitted was due to his negligence. The assessee also contended that the Centralized Processing Centre (CPC) had sent the intimation to an incorrect email address.
Held
The Tribunal condoned the 113-day delay in filing the appeal, accepting the Chartered Accountant's affidavit. It found that the CPC had erred by sending the intimation to a wrong email address. Consequently, the Tribunal restored the issue to the files of the Assessing Officer for fresh examination and decision in accordance with the law.
Key Issues
Condonation of 113-day delay in filing the appeal; whether the Centralized Processing Centre (CPC) erred in sending the intimation for late deposit of PF/ESI to an incorrect email ID, warranting a remand to the Assessing Officer.
Sections Cited
Income-Tax Act, 1961: Section 250, Income-Tax Act, 1961: Section 143(1), CBDT Notification No.2/2016 dated 3rd February 2016
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, DELHI BENCH: ‘F’ NEW DELHI
Before: SHRI G.S. PANNU, VICE- & SHRI ANUBHAV SHARMA
ORDER PER ANUBHAV SHARMA: JUDICIAL MEMBER:
Present appeal of the assessee arising from the order of the NFAC dated 07.07.2023 passed under Section 250 of the Income-Tax
Act, 1961 and relates to assessment year 2018-19, in an appeal filed by assessee before CIT(A), challenging the intimation dated 013.02.2020 u/s 143(1) of the Act.
On hearing the rival sides it comes up that on merit the solitary issue involved is regarding late deposit of Rs.1,20,38,327 on account of late deposit of PF/ESI. However, before us Ld. AR has pointed out the fact of delayed filing of appeal before Tribunal by 113 days. On that account it can be appreciated that the Charted Accountant, representing the assessee before lower tax authorities has filed his own affidavit, deposing that it was out of his negligence there was delay. There cannot be a more sufficient reason to condone the delay. Thus we consider it an appropriate case to condone the delay in filing appeal.
Next the Ld. AR has also drawn our attention of the Bench towards the application for additional ground on 26th December 2023 and contended that the Assessing Officer/Centralized Processing Centre (CPC) has sent the intimation at the incorrect Email ID i.e. sainisohna51@gmail.com. The Ld. AR has further drawn our attention towards the return of income filed in ITR-3, copy of which is made
available at page no. 22 of the PB, which shows the correct Email ID i.e. bhunesh24@gmail.com. Thereafter, learned counsel for the assessee has drawn our attention towards the CBDT Notification No.2/2016 dated 3rd day of February. 2016 to support the contention that communication have to be delivered or transmitted electronically at email address available in the ITR furnished by the addressee to which communication relates.
Thus there is no doubt in our mind that the Centralized Processing Centre (CPC), Bangalore has erred in sending the intimation on a wrong address and ends of justice will be served by restoring the issue to the files of the Assessing Officer for examining and the deciding the issue afresh, as per law.
In the result, the appeal is allowed for statistical purposes with consequences to follow as per directions above.