CHETAN TRAVELS ,BANGALORE V. DCIT, CIRCLE-1(1)(1), BANGALORE

ITA 2337/BANG/2024

AI Insights

This case involves an appeal by Chetan Travels against the order passed by the Addl/JCIT(A)-2, Vadodara, concerning the assessment year 2018-19. The appeal was initially delayed due to the assessee's misunderstanding, believing that their tax consultant was handling the matter. Upon receiving a recovery notice, the assessee realized the oversight and filed the appeal with a delay of three days, which the ITAT condoned. The main issue in the appeal was the treatment of profit on the sale of assets, which the assessee reported in their financial statements but adjusted in the computation of income and depreciation schedule. The ITAT found that these adjustments appeared to be in accordance with the law but had not been verified by the lower authorities. Consequently, the matter was remanded back to the AO for a fresh assessment.

• Counselvise Citation: [2025] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 712637 (ITAT-BANGALORE)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 30-07-2025
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Assessment Year: 2018-2019
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: BALUSAMY N
• Assessee Lawyers: SUDHEENDRA B R
• Keywords: Condonation of delay; Set aside; Depreciation

Judgement Text

" IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ‘C’ BENCH, BANGALORE BEFORE SHRI WASEEM AHMED, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI SOUNDARARAJAN K, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA No. 2337/Bang/2024 Assessment Year: 2018-19 Chetan Travels, No.2, Chik Bazar Road, Opp. Shivajinagar Bus Stand, Bangalore – 560 051. PAN – AAAFC 9006 E Vs. The Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle – 1(1)(1), Bangalore. APPELLANT RESPONDENT Assessee by : Shri Sudheendra BR, Advocate Revenue by : Shri Balusamy N, JCIT (DR) Date of hearing : 03.07.2025 Date of Pronouncement : 30.07.2025 O R D E R PER WASEEM AHMED, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER: This is an appeal filed by the assessee against the order passed by the Addl/JCIT(A)-2, Vadodara vide order dated 12/09/2024 in DIN No. ITBA/APL/SA/250/2024-25/1068631751(1) for the assessment year 2018-19. Printed from counselvise.com ITA No.2337/Bang/2024 Page 2 of 4 . 2. At the outset, it was noted that there is a delay of 3 days in filing the appeal by the assessee. The assessee filed a condonation petition along with a notarized affidavit explaining the reason for the delay. 3. It was submitted that the assessee was under the bona-fide impression that the tax consultant was taking care of the appeal pending before the learned CIT(A). Accordingly, the assessee inadvertently did not take notice of the order passed by the learned CIT(A), which was communicated on his email ID. 4. However, on receipt of a recovery notice issued by the AO vide letter dated 20.11.2024, the assessee came to know about the order passed by the learned CIT(A). Thereafter, the assessee immediately took steps and filed the appeal before the ITAT. However, in this process, a delay of 3 days occurred. In view of the above, the learned AR prayed before us to condone the delay and decide the issue on merits. 5. On the merits of the case, it was submitted by the learned AR that the learned CIT(A) passed an ex parte order. As per the learned AR, the assessee had shown profit on the sale of assets in the profit and loss account. But the same was adjusted in the computation of income. The effect was given in the depreciation schedule filed along with the return of income. The learned AR, in support of his contention, drew our attention to pages 35 to 47 of the paper book, where the tax audit report was placed. Accordingly, the learned AR prayed that the matter may be set aside to the file of the AO for fresh adjudication as per the provisions of law. Printed from counselvise.com ITA No.2337/Bang/2024 Page 3 of 4 . 6. On the other hand, the learned DR, considering the short length of the delay, did not raise any objection to the condonation of delay filed by the assessee. The learned DR also did not raise any objection if the matter is set aside to the file of the AO for fresh adjudication as per the provisions of law. 7. We have heard the rival contentions of both parties and perused the materials available on record. Considering the short length of the delay and no objection raised by the learned DR, we condone the delay in filing the appeal by the assessee. Accordingly, we proceed to adjudicate the issue on merits. 7.1 On the merit of the case, we note that the CPC, in the intimation generated under section 143(1) of the Act, added the amount of profit shown by the assessee on the sale of assets. The assessee had shown the amount of profit on the sale of assets in the financial statements but made an adjustment in the computation of income as well as in the depreciation schedule. Both the computation of income and the depreciation schedule are available on record. In our considered view, the adjustments made by the assessee in the financial statement prima facie appear to be as per the provisions of law. However, the same has not been verified by the lower authorities. Therefore, in the interest of justice and fair play, we set aside the issue to the file of the AO for fresh adjudication as per the provisions of law. Hence, the ground of appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes. Printed from counselvise.com ITA No.2337/Bang/2024 Page 4 of 4 . 8. In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced in court on 30th day of July, 2025 Sd/- Sd/- (SOUNDARARAJAN K) (WASEEM AHMED) Judicial Member Accountant Member Bangalore Dated, 30th July, 2025 / vms / Copy to: 1. The Applicant 2. The Respondent 3. The CIT 4. The CIT(A) 5. The DR, ITAT, Bangalore. 6. Guard file By order Asst. Registrar, ITAT, Bangalore Printed from counselvise.com "