Loading judgment…
Facts
The assessee filed an appeal before the CIT(A) with a significant delay of 4036 days against an intimation order under section 143(1) dated January 17, 2012. The assessee claimed they never received the intimation until February 8, 2023, and had filed a rectified return earlier due to errors. The CIT(A) dismissed the appeal due to the delay.
Held
The Tribunal held that the assessee's submission that the order u/s. 143(1) was received on February 8, 2023, constituted sufficient cause to condone the delay. Therefore, the delay of 4036 days was condoned.
Key Issues
Whether the CIT(A) erred in dismissing the appeal solely on the ground of delay without condoning it, despite the assessee claiming non-receipt of the intimation order.
Sections Cited
250, 143(1), 10(34), 249(2), 249(3)
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, ‘C’ BENCH
Before: SHRI PRASHANT MAHARISHI ACCOUNTANT & SHRI SUNIL KUMAR SINGH
आदेश / O R D E R PER SUNIL KUMAR SINGH (J.M): 1. This appeal has been preferred against the impugned order dated 15.12.2023 passed in Appeal no. CIT(A) 56, Mumbai/10025/2010-11 by the Ld. Commissioner of Income– tax(Appeals)/ National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC) [hereinafter referred to as the “CIT(A)”] u/s. 250 of the Income- tax Act, 1961 [hereinafter referred to as "Act"] for the Canadian Kay Pump Ltd. Assessment year [A.Y.] 2011-12, wherein learned CIT(A) has dismissed assessee's appeal upon rejection of assessee’s prayer for the condonation of delay.
According to the impugned order, appellant assessee filed first appeal before learned CIT(A) on 10.03.2023 against the intimation order passed u/s. 143(1) dated 17.01.2012 with a delay of 4036 days.
Learned representative for the assessee has submitted that appellant never received the intimation u/s. 143(1) dated 17.01.2012 before 08.02.2023. He has further submitted that according to the statement of facts filed before learned CIT(A), the appellant filed rectified return of income on 02.05.2017 as the original return had certain errors on account of not claiming exemption u/s. 10(34) of the Act. Assessee thereafter received intimation u/s. 143(1) dated 17.01.2012 on 08.02.2023 only. After receiving the order, assessee, filed first appeal on 10.03.2023 which was within 30 days. An affidavit dated 06.09.2024 on behalf of Shri. Mahesh Bhave an authorized signatory of the assessee company has also been filed to this effect. Learned representative thus submits that the first appeal was filed within 30 days from the date of communication of the order u/s. 143(1) of the Act.
Learned DR has vehemently supported the impugned order.
We have heard learned representatives for both the parties and perused the material available on record.
It appears that learned CIT(A) has dismissed assessee’s first appeal solely upon rejection of assessee’s prayer for the Canadian Kay Pump Ltd. condonation of delay of about 4036 days in filing the same. The limitation period for filing an appeal before learned CIT(A) u/s. 249(2) of the Act is 30 days. However, section 249(3) of the Act empowers the first appellate authority to condone the delay if satisfied that appellant had sufficient cause for not presenting it within that period. Learned CIT(A) was, however was not convinced to condone the said delay of 4036 days in filing the first appeal.
Considering the unrebutted submissions on behalf of appellant assessee that the order u/s. 143(1) dated 17.01.2012 was received by the assessee on 08.02.2023, we deem it sufficient cause to condone the said delay of 4036 days caused in filing the first appeal before the first appellate authority. The delay is accordingly condoned.
In the result, the appeal is allowed in above terms. The impugned order dated 15.12.2023 is set aside. The delay in filing the first appeal before the first appellant authority i.e before learned CIT(A) stands condoned. We restore the matter back to the file of learned CIT(A) for passing order afresh on merit in accordance with law. Needless to say that the first appellate authority shall ensure the substantial compliance of the principles of natural justice. Order pronounced on 13.09.2024.