9911796707
TMI Blog2024 (12) TMI 185X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... mpugned order on the following grounds of appeal: "1. Ground No.1: That on the facts and on the circumstances of the case, CPC has erred in computing income under the Head Business and Profession at Rs. 57 as against loss of (-) Rs. 3,95,943/- claimed by the assessee. Processing of return by CPC is incorrect and against statutory provisions which is bad in law, against law of natural justice and uncalled for and may kindly be deleted. 2. Ground 2: That double taxation of same Income is incorrect and against statutory provisions which is bad in law, against law of natural justice and uncalled for and may kindly be deleted. 3. Ground 3: Hon. CIT(A) has erred in dismissing the appeal without condoning the delay. Since the delay in filing ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... double taxation in its hand. However, the aforesaid application filed by the assessee firm was rejected by the CPC, Bengaluru vide its order dated 22.12.2022. Thereafter, the assessee firm filed a grievance before the A.O on 03.01.2023 which, however, was disposed off by him by stating that as soon as the solution is received from the helpdesk the issue will be resolved accordingly. 4. Thereafter, the assessee firm assailed the order passed by the CPC/A.O u/s. 143(1) of the Act dated 16.11.2022 before the CIT(Appeals) as regards the impugned addition that was made while processing its return of income for the subject year. However, the CIT(Appeals) taking cognizance of the fact that a delay of 30 days was involved in the filing of the app ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... elay condonation request of appellant is rejected. The above view has also been taken by Hon'ble High Court of Madras in the case of Siva Industries & Holdings Ltd. Vs Assistant Commissioner of Income-tax, Company Circle VI(3), Chennai [2023] 153 taxmann.com 354 (Madras) in a recent decision. Thus, the appeal filed by appellant is not maintainable as the same is filed beyond the time limit permitted u/s 249 of the IT Act for filing of appeal and there is no sufficient cause for delay in filing of appeal, which can be condoned. Accordingly, the appeal of the appellant is treated as dismissed u/s. 250 r.w.s.251 of the Act without considering the merits of the appeal filed. 4. In the end, the present appeal is treated as dismissed." 5. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... me herein above, it is a matter of fact borne from record that the delay of 30 days in preferring the appeal before the CIT(Appeals) had crept in for the reason that the assessee firm had taken recourse to an alternative remedy by seeking rectification of mistake u/s. 154 of the Act with the CPC/A.O, Bengaluru. As the conduct of the assessee firm does not smack of any lackadaisical approach, therefore, I am of a firm conviction that the delay of 30 days in filing of the appeal before the CIT(Appeals) ought to have been condoned by him. My aforesaid view is fortified by the judgment of the Hon'ble High Court of Chhattisgarh in the case of Sidharth Co-operative Credit & Thrift Society Limited Vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward 2(1), Bhilai (C. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... have been condoned. For the sake of clarity, the observation of the Hon'ble High Court are culled out as under: "10. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and went through the records and documents filed. 11. Indisputably, after the return was filed, the deduction claimed by the appellant was denied on 07.06.2019. Consequently, first appeal was filed under Section 246A, which was dismissed on 19.04.2022. The statute provides for rectification i.e. a review, in case where certain facts have been left out or wrongly considered. The appellant thought it proper to avail such remedy but did not succeed and eventually the rectification prayer was subsequently dismissed, thereby upholding the original order of first appeal on 19.4.202 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... have been condoned and the facts has to be seen in a cluster not in fagment. 15. Consequently, we allow the appeal and condone the delay of 530 days in filing the appeal before the ITAT and remit back the case to the ITAT to adjudicate afresh, in accordance with law and on its own merits. Accordingly, the question of law is answered in favor of the appellant." As the facts involved in the present appeal are para-meteria as were there before the Hon'ble High Court in the aforementioned case, therefore, I am of the view that the CIT(Appeals) ought to have condoned the delay of 30 days, which was not only backed by justifiable reasons, but also by no means can be dubbed as inordinate. Accordingly, in terms of my aforesaid observations, I r ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
