BACARDI INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,DELHI V. ASSISTANT DIRECTOR OF INCOME TAX, CPC, BENGALURU

ITA 4522/DEL/2024

AI Insights

The case involves Bacardi India Private Limited appealing against the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), which dismissed their appeal as being barred by a delay of 110 days. The original rectification order under section 154 of the Income Tax Act was dated 07/07/2021 but was digitally signed and served to the assessee only on 29/10/2021. The assessee argued that the appeal was filed within the prescribed time period of 30 days from the actual receipt of the order. The Tribunal found that the appeal was indeed filed within the correct time frame and directed the CIT(A) to reconsider the case on its merits.

• Counselvise Citation: [2025] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 23548 (ITAT-DELHI)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 17-02-2025
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: A
• Assessment Year: 2020-2021
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: JAVED AKHTAR
• Assessee Lawyers: PARTH
• Keywords: Opportunity of being heard; Depreciation; Period of limitation; Rectification of order; Time period of passing order
• Section: 154; 143(1)

Judgement Text

" IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH ‘A’: NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI MAHAVIR SINGH, VICE PRESIDENT AND SHRI MANISH AGARWAL, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA No.4522/Del/2024 (ASSESSMENT YEAR 2020-21) Bacardi India Private Limited, S-405 LGF, Part-2, Greater Kailash, South Delhi-110048 PAN-AAACB3944R Vs. Assistant Director of Income Tax, CPC. (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee by Shri Parth, Adv. Department by Mr. Javed Akhtar, CIT-DR Date of Hearing 17/02/2025 Date of Pronouncement 17/02/2025 O R D E R PER MANISH AGARWAL, AM: This is an appeal filed by the assessee against the order of the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi dated 30/07/2024 in Appeal No. NFAC/2019- 20/10092222 for Assessment Year 2020-21. 2. The brief facts of the case are that the assesse is a company and filed its return of income on 13/02/2021 declaring total income at Nil after claiming set off for brought forward losses and depreciation. The return was processed u/s 143(1) and, thereafter, the assessee 2 ITA No.4522/Del/2024 filed an application u/s 154 for rectification of the same was dismissed vide order dated 07/07/2021 digitally singed on 29/10/2021, against which the assessee preferred the appeal before Ld. CIT(A). The Ld. CIT(A) vide impugned order has dismissed the appeal of the assessee by observing that the appeal of the assessee is barred by 110 days and assessee has not filed any condonation application for condoning the delay of 110 days. While observing so the Ld. CIT(A) observed that in Form No.35, the assessee mentioned the date of service as 29/10/2021 whereas the impugned order u/s 154 of the Act was dated 07/07/2021. The Ld. CIT(A) has verified the generation of DIN which was on 07/07/2021 and thus, it is presumed by Ld. CIT(A) that since, it is online order by CPC which would be served on very same day through e-mail, accordingly, he calculated the delay of 110 and also in absence of delay condonation petition appeal was dismissed as non-admissible. 4. Before us, the assessee has taken various grounds of appeal, however, the effective grounds of appeal with respect to delay are ground of appeal No.2,3 & 4 are as under: “2 Ld. CIT(A) erred in arbitrarily dismissing the appeal incorrectly presuming that there is delay in filing the appeal, without independently considering impact of time extensions due to Covid and without providing any opportunity of being heard to the Appellant leading to unlawful and incorrect conclusions. 3. Ld. CIT(A) has failed to consider that rectification order appealed against was digitally signed on 29 October 2021 and consequently received by the Appellant on 29 October 2021 only. Hence, the appeal filed before Ld. CIT(A) on 26 November 2021 was in any case, within prescribed time period of 30 days from receipt of the order. 3 ITA No.4522/Del/2024 4. Without prejudice to ground no. 3, Ld. CIT(A) has failed to appreciate that the appeal has been filed within time period considering the extended time limit provided by the Hon'ble Supreme Court vide order dated 10 January 2022 and CBDT circular No. 10/2021 dated 25 May 2021 in view of Covid outbreak.” Before us, Ld. AR argued that though the order u/s 154 was dated 07/07/2021, however, it was digitally signed on 29/10/2021 which is evident from the order of rectification u/s 154 under appeal, copy of which is available at PB 78. He further submits that the said order was sent to the assessee through email on 29th October, 2021 at 5.30 P.M. and the necessary copy of the email print is available at page 98. The assessee submit that the appeal was filed before the Ld. CIT(A) on 26/11/2021 and since, the order u/s 154 of the Act was served upon the assessee only on 29/10/2021, thus, the appeal is well within the time and, therefore, he prayed that appeal of the assessee be admitted and decided om merits. Ld. AR alternatively prayed that the case of the assessee is falls within the time line extended by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in view of the suo motu order dated 10/01/2022. The Hon’ble Supreme Court vide aforesaid order has extended the time limits, the limitations which expired between 15 March, 2020 till 28 March, 2022 or 90 days whichever is greater. He accordingly, prayed that there was no delay in filing of appeal even if the limitation period is considered in view of the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court has stated above. 5. On the contrary, the ld. SR. DR vehemently supported the orders of the lower authorities. 4 ITA No.4522/Del/2024 6. We have heard the submissions and perused the material available on record. From the perusal of the rectification order dated 07/07/2021 against which present appeal is filed by the assessee as available at page 78 of the PB, it is seen that the order was digitally signed by the Assistant Director of Income Tax CPC, Bengaluru on 29/10/2021 and, thereafter, the said order was sent through email to the assessee on the very same day. Thus, the observations of Ld. CIT(A) that the impugned order has DIN on 07/07/2021 and, therefore, the same was delivered on the very same day is not correct. Once, the order is digitally signed only on 29/10/2021, it is not possible that the service of the same to the assessee was on 07/07/2021. Therefore, as per the evidences produced before us, we find that digitally signed order u/s 154 of the Act was served upon the assessee only on 29/11/2021 through email. Since the appeal was filed by the assessee on 26/11/2021, thus the same is within 30 days of the service of the order appealed against and therefore, the appeal filed by the assessee is within the statutory time limits and there is no delay. It is further seen that the Ld. CIT(A) has not decided the appeal on merits and dismissed the appeal as not admissible on account of delay. As we have already hold that the appeal of the assessee is filed within the time limit, the Ld. CIT(A) is directed to decide the appeals on merits after providing reasonable opportunities of being heard. With these directions, the appeal of the assessee is sent back to the file of Ld. CIT(A). 5 ITA No.4522/Del/2024 10. In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced in the open court on 17/02/2025. Sd/- Sd/- (MAHAVIR SINGH) (MANISH AGARWAL) VICE PRESIDENT ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Dated: 17/02/2025 PK/Ps Copy forwarded to: 1. Appellant 2. Respondent 3. CIT 4. CIT(Appeals) 5. DR: ITAT ASSISTANT REGISTRAR ITAT NEW DELHI "