MAF CLOTHING PRIVATE LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(4), BANGALORE

The brief facts of the case are that the assessee is, a private limited company engaged in the business of manufacturing and sale of readymade garments and apparels, filed its return of income on 18.01.2021 declaring a nominal income of Rs.6.38 crores and booked profit u/s. 115JB of the Act amounting to Rs.10.40 crores. The return of income was processed u/s. 143(1) of the Act on 23.12.2021. While processing the return of income the CPC, Bangalore (Assessing Officer) (AO) has made certain adjustments and additions.

Aggrieved with the order of the AO the assessee filed appeal before the ld. CIT(A) with a delay of 506 days. The ld. CIT (A) dismissed the appeal of the assessee in limnee without condoning the delay in filing the appeal, on the ground that the reasons explained by the assessee are not sufficient for condoning the delay. 4. Now the assessee has come up in appeal before us. The ld. Counsel of the assessee pointed out though there are 9 grounds of appeal in the present appeal, the issue is whether the ld. CIT (A) was correct in holding that there was no MAF Clothing Pvt. Ltd. sufficient cause for filing the appeal belatedly. To point out the factual scenario, the ld. Counsel of the assessee drew the attention of the Bench towards the petition for condonation of delay filed before the ld. CIT(A). He contended that in this case notice u/s 143(2) was issued to the assessee on 29.06.2021, and thereafter on 23.12.2021 the CPC has made certain adjustments u/s 143(1) of the Act. The ld. Counsel submitted that the assessee was under the bona fide belief that 143(1) intimation, is also a part of notice of 143(2) proceedings and the assessee would contest these adjustments in assessment proceedings. And hence he remained silent for challenging the action of CPC before CIT(A) in time.