M/S. BASF CATALYSTS INDIA PVT. LTD.,KANCHIPURAM vs. DCIT, CC-1(1), CHENNAI

This appeal filed by the assessee is directed against the order dated 05.07.2024 passed by the Addl/JCIT (A)-1, Vadodara for the assessment year 2022-23.

At the outset, the ld. AR Shri N.V. Krishnan, Advocate challenged the action of the ld. CIT(A) in dismissing the appeal by refusing to condone the delay of 120 days in filing the appeal against intimation under section 143(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 [“Act” in short] dated 01.11.2023. He submits that the assessee filed rectification on 20.11.2023 is currently awaiting review, screenshot copy placed at page 14 of the paper book. Further he submits that the Assessing Officer issued notice under section 143(2) of the Act dated 01.06.2023 intimating the assessee that the return of income has been selected for scrutiny, placed at page 1 of the paper book. He submits that since the notice issued under section 143(2) of the Act is time-barred and unsustainable under law, the assessee preferred an appeal against intimation under section 143(1) of the Act before the ld. CIT(A). He submits that the assessee filed condonation petition before the ld. CIT(A) to condone the delay.

The ld. DR Shri Nilay Baran Som, CIT relied on the order of the ld. CIT(A).

After hearing both the parties, we note that the CPC, Bengaluru passed the intimation under section 143(1) of the Act dated 01.11.2023 against which the assessee preferred an appeal before the ld. CIT(A) with a delay of 120 days. We note that the assessee filed condonation petition before the ld. CIT(A) and the submissions are reproduced at page 8 to 10 of the impugned order. We also note that as per screenshot placed at page 14 of the paper book, the assessee created rectification request through online, but, the same was not obliged with an error that the case has been selected for scrutiny. Under the above facts and circumstances and in the interest of justice, we deem it proper to remand the matter back to the file of the ld. CIT(A) with a direction to condone the delay and adjudicate the issues on merits. The assessee is at liberty to file evidence in support of his claim. Thus, the grounds raised by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes.