DCIT, CIRCLE- 8(1), NEW DELHI vs. E.I. DUPONT INDIA P. LTD., GURGAON

PDF · subscribers
ITA 2473/DEL/2018Status: DisposedITAT Delhi12 February 2025AY 2009-10Bench: SHRI S. RIFAUR RAHMAN (Accountant Member), SHRI VIMAL KUMAR (Judicial Member)4 pages
AI SummaryAllowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal held that the delay in filing the appeal before the Ld. JCIT(A) should be condoned in the interest of justice. The reasoning was that after considering the submissions made by the assessee and in the interest of justice, the Tribunal was of the considered view that the delay ought to be condoned. Consequently, the matter was remitted back to the Ld. JCIT(A) to decide the appeal afresh after providing an adequate opportunity of being heard to the assessee. The Tribunal directed the assessee to make proper submissions and appear before the Ld. JCIT(A) and cooperate with the tax authorities. The appeal filed by the assessee was allowed for statistical purposes. No issue was expressly left undecided.

What were the facts?

The assessee, Aarti Sharma, is an individual salaried employee. For Assessment Year 2021-22, she earned salary income from Genpact India Pvt. Ltd. and Genpact LLC in the USA, amounting to Rs. 22,35,787, which was subject to US withholding taxes. The assessee filed her return of income on 30.12.2021, declaring a taxable income of Rs. 1,35,76,760 and claiming relief under Section 89 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, instead of Section 90, for Rs. 4,92,346. She also filed Form 67 declaring foreign income and claiming foreign tax credit. The CPC passed an intimation order on 22.03.2022, disregarding the Section 89 relief and raising a demand of Rs. 5,91,100, including interest. A rectification request under Section 154 was filed on 20.06.2022, which was processed with a demand order of Rs. 5,91,000 on the same date. The assessee appealed to the Ld. JCIT(A), but the appeal was filed on 15.09.2022, which was considered belated. The Ld. JCIT(A) dismissed the appeal as not maintainable due to the delay, without condoning it.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the delay in filing the appeal before the Ld. JCIT(A) for Assessment Year 2021-22 should be condoned, turning on the interpretation of "sufficient cause" under the relevant procedural provisions of the Income-tax Act, 1961. Assessee's Contention: The assessee argued that the delay should be condoned in the interest of justice, implying that there were reasons for the delay that warranted condonation, though specific grounds for "sufficient cause" are not detailed in the judgment. Revenue's Contention: The revenue did not present any arguments before the Tribunal as the matter was decided based on the assessee's appeal against the Ld. JCIT(A)'s order. The Ld. JCIT(A) had held that no "sufficient cause" was shown for the delay.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 89,Section 90,Section 154,Section 143(1),Section 234A,Section 234B,Section 234C

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, DELHI BENCH ‘A’: NEW DELHI

Before: SHRI VIKAS AWASTHY & SHRI S.RIFAUR RAHMAN

For Appellant: Shri Vishal Kalra, Advocate, Ms. Reena Grewal, CA, Ms. Snigdha Gautam, Advocate
For Respondent: Shri Ashish Tripathi, Sr. DR
Hearing: 22.04.2025

Order

: 22.04.2025 O R D E R

PER S.RIFAUR RAHMAN,ACCOUNTANT MEMBER :

1.

The assessee has filed appeal against the order of the Learned Addl./Joint Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-1, Jaipur [“Ld. JCIT(A)”, for short] dated 18.03.2024 for the Assessment Year 2021-22. Brief facts of the case are, the assessee is a resident individual being a 2. salaried employee with Genpact India Pvt. Ltd. During AY 2021-22, the assessee was also working in United States of America (USA) for Genpact LLC and was inter alia in respect of salary income from USA during the assessment year under consideration amounting to Rs.22,35,787 which suffered withholding taxes in USA. The assessee filed return of income for the year under consideration on 30.12.2021 declaring taxable income of Rs.1,35,76,760/- and relief u/s 89 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (for short ‘the Act’) instead of section 90 of the Act amounting to Rs.4,92,346/-. The assessee also filed Form 67 declaring income from outside India amounting to Rs.22,35,787/- and claimed foreign tax credit outside India amounting to Rs.4,92,346. Thereafter, CPC has passed intimation order on 22.03.2022 disregarding the relief u/s 89 of the Act amounting to Rs.4,92,346/- and intimating impugned demand of Rs.5,91,100/- which included interest u/s 234A/234B/234C. In response to the said intimation, assessee filed rectification request u/s 154 of the Act on 20.06.2022 for recertification of mistake. Thereafter, CPC has processed rectification request with demand order amounting to Rs.5,91,000/- on 20.06.2022. Aggrieved against the above order, assessee preferred an appeal before 3. the ld. JCIT (A). Ld. JCIT (A) observed that the intimation u/s 143(1) was passed on 22.03.2022 while the appeal was filed on 15.09.2022 belatedly. Ld. JCIT (A), relying on various judgments, held that the delay in fling the appeal is not condoned as no “sufficient cause” has been shown for the assessee’s failure to file the appeal within the prescribed period of limitation, hence the appeal sought to be instituted belatedly is hereby not admitted and accordingly dismissed as not maintainable.

4.

Aggrieved against the above order, assessee is in appeal before us.

5.

Considered the rival submissions and material placed on record. After going through the submissions made by the assessee before us and in the interest of justice, we are of the considered view that the delay in filing the appeal before the ld. CIT (A) is to be condoned and the matter is to be remitted back to ld. CIT (A). Accordingly, we condone the delay in filing the appeal and remit the matter back to ld. CIT (A) to decide afresh, after giving adequate opportunity of being heard. We also direct assessee to make proper submissions and appear before the ld.CIT (A) on the date of hearing and cooperate with the tax authorities. Accordingly, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes.

More judgments on Section 89

All 65 judgments and leading authorities on Section 89 →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →