What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal found that the mistake was inadvertent and did not prejudice the assessee's appeal rights. Therefore, the impugned order was set aside, and the CIT(A) was directed to decide the appeal on merits.

The assessee's appeal was dismissed by the CIT(A) for a delay of 658 days. The assessee had mistakenly mentioned the assessment order was passed under Section 143(1) instead of Section 143(3) in the appeal form.

What were the issues?

Whether an appeal dismissed for delay due to a clerical error in mentioning the section of the assessment order should be admitted for hearing on merits.

Ponnusamy Muthiah, Tiruchirappalli vs DCIT | ITAT Chennai 2024

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, ‘A’ BENCH, CHENNAI

Before: HON’BLE SHRI MANOJ KUMAR AGGARWAL, AM & HON’BLE SHRI MANU KUMAR GIRI, JM

आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण ‘ए’ �ायपीठ चे�ई म�। IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ‘A’ BENCH, CHENNAI माननीय +ी मनोज कुमार अ/वाल ,लेखा सद4 एवं माननीय +ी मनु कुमार िग7र, �ाियक सद4 के सम8। BEFORE HON’BLE SHRI MANOJ KUMAR AGGARWAL, AM AND HON’BLE SHRI MANU KUMAR GIRI, JM आयकरअपील सं./ (िनधा9रणवष9 / Assessment Year: 2017-18) Shri Ponnusamy Muthiah DCIT बनाम/ Flat No.401, Arjith Apex Maris Avenue, Circle 1(1), 4th Floor, Collector Office Road, Trichy Vs. Tiruchirappalli – 620 001. �थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./PAN/GIR No. AALPM- 5096-P (अपीलाथ�/Appellant) : (� थ� / Respondent) अपीलाथ� कीओरसे/ Appellant by : Shri Arjun Raj (Advocate)-Ld. AR � थ�कीओरसे/Respondent by : Shri AR V Sreenivasan (Addl.CIT)-Ld. Sr. DR सुनवाई की तारीख/Date of Hearing : 29-04-2024 घोषणा की तारीख /Date of Pronouncement : 02-05-2024 आदेश / O R D E R Manoj Kumar Aggarwal (Accountant Member)

Aforesaid appeal by assessee for Assessment Year (AY) 2017-18 arises out of the order of learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi [CIT(A)] dated 24-01-2024 in the matter of an intimation issued by CPC u/s 143(1) of the Act on 09-04-2018. The Ld. CIT(A) did not admit the appeal for want of condonation of delay of 658 days.

The Ld. AR submitted that the case was scrutinized and an assessment was framed u/s 143(3) on 30-12-2019 wherein Ld. AO made addition of Rs.95.08 Lacs under the head capital gains. The assessee preferred further appeal in Form No.35 on 27.01.2020 and by inadvertent mistake, wrongly mentioned in Column No.2 (a) of the form that the order was passed u/s 143(1). The Ld. AR submitted that all the other details viz. order number, DIN, Date of order etc. were correctly filled in. On these facts, Ld. AR pleaded for admission of the appeal and sought adjudication on merits. The Ld. Sr. DR has opposed the same.

Upon perusal of material on record, we concur with aforesaid submissions of Ld. AR. We find that there is an advertent mistake which could not jeopardize the appeal rights of the assessee. Therefore, we set aside the impugned order and direct Ld. CIT(A) to pass speaking order on merits by considering assessment framed u/s 143(3). The assessee is directed to substantiate its stand. 4. The appeal stand allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced in open court on 2nd May, 2024 Sd/- Sd/- (MANU KUMAR GIRI) (MANOJ KUMAR AGGARWAL) �ाियक सद4 / JUDICIAL MEMBER लेखा सद4 / ACCOUNTANT MEMBER चे3ई Chennai; िदनांक Dated : 02-05-2024 DS आदेशकीNितिलिपअ/ेिषत/Copy of the Order forwarded to : 1. अपीलाथ�/Appellant 2. � थ�/Respondent 3. आयकरआयु</CIT 4. िवभागीय�ितिनिध/DR 5. गाडAफाईल/GF

PONNUSAMY MUTHIAH,TIRUCHIRAPPALLI vs. DCIT, CIRCLE 1(1), , TRICHY

What did the Tribunal hold?

What were the facts?

What were the issues?

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Recent GST High Court judgments