M/S JSTI TRANSFORMERS PVT. LTD.,BADDI vs. ITO, WARD, BADDI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 56/CHANDI/2023Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh05 April 2024AY 2017-18Bench: SHRI. SANJAY GARG (Judicial Member), SHRI. VIKRAM SINGH YADAV (Accountant Member)3 pages
AI SummaryAllowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal, finding that the assessee had demonstrated a reasonable cause. The Tribunal also set aside the CIT(A)'s order and directed it to decide the appeal on merits.

What were the facts?

The assessee filed an appeal before the CIT(A) with a delay of 48 days. The assessee contended that the delay was due to an oversight by an employee and the COVID-19 lockdown, and that the appeal fee was paid within the original limitation period.

What were the issues?

Whether the delay in filing the appeal before the CIT(A) was justifiable and should be condoned, and whether the matter should be decided on merits.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 249(2)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Cases cited in this judgment(1)Show list

Detected automatically from the text. The count shows how many other judgments on BharatTax rely on the same authority.

  • 441 ITR 722
    441 ITR 722 · 2022 · SC
    162 citing

आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण,च�डीगढ़ �यायपीठ “ए” , च�डीगढ़ IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, CHANDIGARH BENCH “A”, CHANDIGARH HEARING THROUGH: VIRTUAL MODE �ी संजय गग�, �याियक सद�य एवं �ी िव�म �सह यादव, लेखा सद�य BEFORE: SHRI. SANJAY GARG, JM & SHRI. VIKRAM SINGH YADAV, AM आयकर अपील सं./ 2023 िनधा�रण वष� / Assessment Year : 2017-18 M/s JSTI Transformers Pvt. Ltd. बनाम The ITO HB No. 214, Bhatauli Kalan, Hilltop Baddi Indl. Area, Jharmarjr, Dist: Solan Baddi-173205, Himachal Pradesh �ायी लेखा सं./PAN NO: AACCJ1285D अपीलाथ�/Appellant ��यथ�/Respondent िनधा�रती क� ओर से/Assessee by : Shri Hari Krishan, ITP राज�व क� ओर से/ Revenue by : Shri Surinder Meena, Sr. D.R सुनवाई क� तारीख/Date of Hearing : 01/04/2024 उदघोषणा क� तारीख/Date of Pronouncement : 05/04/2024 आदेश/Order PER VIKRAM SINGH YADAV, A.M. :

This is an appeal filed by the Assessee against the order of the Ld. CIT(A), Delhi-44 dt. 15/12/2022 pertaining to Assessment Year 2017-18.

2.

During the course of hearing, it was submitted by the ld AR that the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in not condoning the delay of 40 days in filing of the appeal.

3.

In this regard, it was submitted that in this case, the assessment order dated 27- 12-2019 was served on the assessee on the same date, i.e. 27-12-2019. Accordingly, the appeal was required to be filed by 26-01-2020 i.e., within 30 days from the date of the service of the assessment order, as prescribed u/s 249(2) of the Income Tax Act. The appeal was filed on 14-07-2020. Thus, there was a delay of 169 days in filing of the appeal before the Ld. CIT(A). However, in view of the judgement of Hon'ble Supreme Court in Cognizance for Extension of Limitation (2022) 441 ITR 722(SC), the period of 121 days from 15-03-2020 upto 14-07-2020 is to be excluded. The actual delay in filing of the appeal was accordingly only 48 days, i.e from 26-01-2020 to 15-03-2020.

3.1 It was submitted that Mr Amteshwar Singh Gulati working as Manager (Finance) in the assessee company, who was looking after the income tax compliances, has, by an oversight, omitted to send the assessment order to M/s Grant Thornton & Associates, the Chartered Accountants of the company, well in time for further necessary action like filing of the appeal, etc. This has resulted in delay of 48 days in filing the appeal. However, the government fee of Rs. 1000/- for filing the appeal before the Ld. CIT (Appeal) has been paid on 23-01- 2020, vide challan No. 2671 bearing BSR Code No. 6390340, well within the period of 30 days. In the meantime, the nation wide restrictions and lockdown was imposed because of COVID-19. After the relaxation in the COVID-19 related restrictions and the lockdown, Mr. Amteshwar Singh Gulati verified the pending matters and realised that the further necessary action, like filing of appeal, etc. has not been taken in this matter. Thereafter Mr. Amteshwar Singh Gulati immediately took step towards, consulting the Chartered Accountants etc. and the appeal was eventually filled on 14-07-2020.

3.2 It was submitted that the Ld. CIT(A) has failed to appreciate that the payment of the Government fee of Rs.1,000/- for filing the appeal before the Ld. CIT(A), has been already made on 23- 01-2020, well before the limitation period of 30 days. This fact has been clearly mentioned in para 16 of Form No. 35 filed before the Ld. CIT(A). The assessee was diligent enough to have paid the government fees well in time, for filing the appeal. Thus, the bonafides of the assessee for delay in filing the appeal before the Ld. CIT(A) have been fully established. The delay in filing the appeal before the Ld. CIT(A) was due to a bonafide and reasonable cause, the same may be condoned.

3.3 It was further submitted that the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in not deciding the matter on merits of the case and it was accordingly submitted that the delay so happened may be condoned and the matter be set aside to the file of the Ld. CIT(A) to decide the same on merits.

4.

Per contra the Id. DR has relied on the order of the ld CIT(A), at the same time, has not expressed any reservation where the matter is remitted back to the file of the ld CIT(A) for deciding the matter on merits of the case.

5.

We have heard the rival contentions and purused the material available on record. As far as delay of 48 days is concerned, we find that the appeal filing fee has been paid within the limitation period, the concerned employee handling the tax matters left the services of the assessee company, nation- wide lockdown was subsequently announced beyond the control of the assessee and keeping the same into account, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has also extended the limitation period for filing appeal etc. In view of the same, we find that the assessee has demonstrated the reasonable cause for the delay in filing the appeal and the same is hereby condoned.

6.

On merits, we find that the matter has not been decided by the ld CIT(A). We accordingly set aside the impugned order with a direction to the ld. CIT(A) to decide the appeal on merits of the case as per law after giving proper and adequate opportunity to the assessee.

7.

The appeal of the assessee is treated as allowed for statistical purposes.

More judgments on Section 249(2)

All 636 judgments and leading authorities on Section 249(2) →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →