AI Insights
The case involves Shri Girish Kishinchand Gajwani, the appellant, who filed an appeal against the order of the CIT(A) which dismissed his appeal on the grounds of being belated by 337 days. The appellant had not received the intimation order under section 143(1) of the IT Act, which he argued constituted sufficient cause for the delay in filing the appeal. The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Bangalore, after considering the submissions and evidence, including a screenshot from the e-filing portal showing no intimation order, decided to remit the matter back to the jurisdictional assessing officer to provide the intimation order and then decide the issue as per law.
Appeal details
Counselvise Citation
[2025] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 668676 (ITAT-BANGALORE)
Assessee PAN
Bench
Appeal Number
Appellant
Respondent
Appeal Type
Income Tax Appeal
Pronouncement Date
26-06-2025
Appeal Filed By
Assessee
Order Result
Allowed
Bench Allotted
A
Assessment Year
2018-2019
Judgement Text
"IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ‘A’ BENCH : BANGALORE BEFORE SHRI PRASHANT MAHARISHI, VICE – PRESIDENT AND SHRI PRAKASH CHAND YADAV, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA No. 878/Bang/2025 Assessment Year : 2018-19 Shri Girish Kishinchand Gajwani, D903, Akme Ballet, Outer ring Road, Doddanekundi, Marathahalli Post, Bangalore – 560 037. PAN: AEKPG4576P Vs. The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle – 3(3)(1), Bangalore. APPELLANT RESPONDENT Assessee by : Shri Navneeth N Kini, CA Revenue by : Shri Balusamy N, JCIT-DR Date of Hearing : 25-06-2025 Date of Pronouncement : 26-06-2025 ORDER PER PRAKASH CHAND YADAV, JUDICIAL MEMBER Present appeal of the assessee is arising from the order of the Ld.CIT(A) dated 17/02/2025 having DIN & Order No: ITBA/APL/S/250/2024- 25/1073360370(1) and relates to the A.Y. 2018-19. 2. Brief facts of the case are that assessee in this case filed its return of income declaring total income of Rs. 55,10,310/-. The same was processed u/s. 143(1) of the IT Act. However, the assessee has not received the intimation order u/s. 143(1). It is pertinent to note here that the last date of filing the return of income was 31/08/2018. However, the assessee has Page 2 of 3 ITA No. 878/Bang/2025 filed the return of income on 20/03/2019 and hence the CPC has not granted certain claims of the assessee which claims are not known to the assessee because the assessee has not received the order of intimation till date. 3. Be that as it may, aggrieved with the action of CPC, assessee has filed an appeal before the Ld.CIT and assailed the demand raised by CPC. However, the Ld.CPC dismissed the appeal of the assessee on the ground that the appeal has been filed belatedly by 337 days and hence not maintainable. It is the view of the Ld.CIT(A) that the explanation submitted by the assessee with respect to the condonation of delay was devoid of any merit. 4. Aggrieved with the order of Ld.CIT(A), the assessee came up in appeal before us and argued that the order of CPC u/s. 143(1) of the IT Act has not been received till date and hence non-receipt of order would constitute sufficient cause for filing the appeal beyond the time limit. 5. The Ld.DR relied upon the orders of the authorities below. 6. We have heard the rival submissions and perused the materials available on record. 7. We observe that the assessee has not received the intimation order as evident from annexure – 3 of the paper book. Perusal of this screenshot would show that no such page is there. It is interesting to note that on 24/06/2025 also, the assessee has logged in to the e-filing portal of the department and found that no order of intimation is there. Therefore, considering the facts and circumstances of the case, we remit this matter to the file of jurisdictional assessing officer with the direction that he will supply the copy of intimation, which has not been received by the assessee and then decide the issue as per law. Further, we direct the assessee also to Page 3 of 3 ITA No. 878/Bang/2025 file an application u/s. 154 of the IT Act, after receipt of the order of intimation and pursue the matter. 8. In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced in the open court on 26th June, 2025. Sd/- Sd/- (PRASHANT MAHARISHI) (PRAKASH CHAND YADAV) Vice – President Judicial Member Bangalore, Dated, the 26th June, 2025. /MS / Copy to: 1. Appellant 2. Respondent 3. CIT 4. DR, ITAT, Bangalore 5. Guard file 6. CIT(A) By order Assistant Registrar, ITAT, Bangalore "
Mehul