Loading judgment…
Facts
The assessee filed an appeal against the order of the CIT(A) which dismissed the appeal in limine, alleging it was barred by limitation. The assessee contended that the order of the CPC was passed on a specific date and the delay in filing the appeal was covered by a Supreme Court order extending limitation during the Covid period.
Held
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) had not considered the factual matrix properly and that the Supreme Court's decision regarding extension of limitation during the Covid period was applicable. Therefore, the appeal was not barred by limitation.
Key Issues
Whether the appeal was barred by limitation, and if not, whether the CIT(A) should have decided the appeal on merits.
Sections Cited
143(1), 234B, 234C, 234D, 270A
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “SMC” BENCH, MUMBAI
Before: SHRI NARENDRA KUMAR BILLAIYA, HON’BLE & SHRI RAHUL CHAUDHARY, HON’BLE
| आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण "ायपीठ, मुंबई | IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “SMC” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI NARENDRA KUMAR BILLAIYA, HON’BLE ACCOUNTANT MEMBER & SHRI RAHUL CHAUDHARY, HON’BLE JUDICIAL MEMBER Assessment Year: 2020-21 Rajneesh Sharma, Delhi Income Tax Officer, Civic Centre AM-15, Shalimar Bagh Vs Delhi -110088 [PAN: APQPS9227L] अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) "" यथ"/ (Respondent) Assessee by : Shri Vishal Kala, A/R (appeared virtually) Revenue by : Shri R.R. Makwana, Sr. D/R सुनवाई की तारीख/Date of Hearing : 10/07/2024 घोषणा की तारीख /Date of Pronouncement: 10/07/2024 आदेश/O R D E R PER NARENDRA KUMAR BILLAIYA, AM:
This appeal by the assessee is preferred against the order of the ld. CIT(A)/Addl./JCIT-10, Mumbai, dt. 12/12/2023, pertaining to Assessment Year 2020-21.
The grievance of the assessee reads as under:- “1 That on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the order dated December 12, 2023 passed by the ACIT(A) is bad in law and void ab initio and thus, liable to be quashed.
2. That on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law. ACIT(A) has erred in dismissing the appeal in limine alleging barred by limitation without appreciating that the order dated December 10, 2021 under section 143(1) of the Act was passed by the Central Processing Centre (CPC) and the appeal was fled on May 31, 2022 and delay of 142 days was covered by the order of Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the case of cognizance for extension of limitation in MA No. 21 of 2022 arising out of Suo Moto Writ Petition No. 3 of 2020.
That on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the AGIT(A) upon receipt of appeal from NFAC on August 13, 2023 did not issue any notice to represent the Appellant, especially it the ACIT(A) was of the opinion that the appeal was barred by limitation, and further erred in not deciding the appeal on merits, when all the facts and submissions were on record.
That on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, CPC has erred in exceeding the jurisdiction while processing the income tax return of the Appellant for the subject AY and disallowing House Rent Allowance ("HRA") amounting to INR 3,64,698 claimed as exempt by the Appellant, which was duly supported by Form12BB. The ACIT(A) further erred in not deciding the grounds on merits.
That on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, CPC has erred in adding the HRA amounting to INR 3,64,698 without appreciating that while processing the income tax return under section 143(1) only an incorrect apparent claim could have been disallowed. The ACIT(A) further erred in not deciding the grounds on merits.
That on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, CPC has erred in adding the HRA without appreciating that the same was claimed by the Appellant basis documentary evidence filed with the employer and duly reflected in the Form-16 for the subject AY. The ACIT(A) further erred in not deciding the grounds on merits.
That on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the AO has erred in levying/charging interest under sections 234B. 234C and 234D of the Act.
That on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the AO has erred in levying penalty under section 270A of the Act.”