Arunasalam Jeyakumar, Bengaluru V. The Assistant Director of Income-Tax, CPC, Bengaluru

ITA 139/BANG/2022

• Counselvise Citation: [2022] 105 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 4739 (ITAT-BANGALORE)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 month(s) 14 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 10-04-2022
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: A
• Assessment Year: 2017-2018
• Appeal Filed On: 27-02-2022
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Keywords: Period of limitation

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ‘A’ BENCH : BANGALORE BEFORE SHRI BEENA PILLAI, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND MS. PADMAVATHY S, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER IT(IT)A No.139/Bang/2022 Assessment year : 2017-18 M/s Arunasalam Jeyakumar, Block A, 1 st Floor, Bagmane Kaurel, Byrasandra CV Raman Nagar, Bengaluru-560 093. PAN – AJVPJ 1613 L Vs. The Asst. Director of Income-tax, CPC, Bengaluru. APPELLANT RESPONDENT Assessee by : Shri Bhardwaj Sheshadri, Advocate Revenue by : Shri Shehnawaz ul Rahaman, Addl.CIT(DR) Date of hearing : 11.04.2022 Date of Pronouncement : 11.04.2022 O R D E R Per Padmavathy S, Accountant Member This appeal filed by the assessee is directed against the order of the CIT(A)-12, Bengaluru dated 22/09/2021 for the asst. year 2017- 18. 2. Brief facts of the case are that the assessee was employed with Patni Computer Systems Limited till 10.11.2011. Contributions to IT(IT)A No.139/Bang/2022 Page 2 of 5 Employees Provident Fund (EPF) were made from 20.02.2009 to 10.11.2011. The actual service period for contribution of EPF was 2 years and 8 months. The assessee withdrew the balance of Rs.1,62,21,837/- from his EPF account accumulated on account of his employment with Patni Computer Systems Ltd. on 11.08.2016. This included his own (employee's) contribution of Rs.58,06,092 which the assessee did not offer to tax. By an intimation u/s.143(1) dated 27.03.2019, addition to the extent of assessee’s contribution of Rs.58,06,092 and also for a sum of Rs.23,07,667 appearing in 26As and not in EPFO subscriber ledger card was made. The assessee filed rectification application with the AO for deletion of the aforesaid additions whereby the AO confirmed the additions. 3. Aggrieved, assessee preferred an appeal before the CIT(A) where the assessee contented the issue pertaining to the addition of employee’s contribution of Rs.58,06,092 . There was a delay of 131 days in the appeal filed before the CIT(A) i.e. from 21.11.2020 to 01.04.2021. The assessee has filed condonation petition in this regard and the same was not accepted by the CIT(A). The CIT(A) dismissed the appeal without hearing the appeal on merit. Aggrieved by the order of the CIT(A), the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal. 4. The Ld AR submitted that the delay is covered by the Cognizance for Limitation (2020) 117 taxmann.com 66 (SC) dated 23.03.2020, where the Hon'ble Supreme Court has suo moto extended IT(IT)A No.139/Bang/2022 Page 3 of 5 all the time limits till further orders by extending the due dates with effect from 15.03.2020. 5. We have considered this matter and have taken the materials on record. The Hon’ble Supreme Court suo moto writ petition No.03/2020 along with M.P 21/2022 has held that the period from 15/3/2020 till 28/02/2022 shall stand excluded for the purpose of period of limitation as may be prescribed under any general or special laws in respect of quasi judicial and judicial proceedings. The period of delay (from 21.11.2020 to 01.04.2021) in assessee’s case is covered by the exclusion of period of limitation as per the order of the Hon’ble Supreme Court. Hence we hold that there is no delay to be condoned in filing the appeal before the CIT(A) and refusal of the CIT(A) to condone the delay and reject the appeal of the assessee is not justified. The appeal filed before the CIT(A) is deemed to be filed in time as per the directions of the Hon’ble Supreme Court referred above. 6. We notice that the CIT(A) has rejected the appeal of the assessee on the basis that there is a delay in filing and has not gone into the merits of the appeal filed by the assessee. Hence we remit back the file to the CIT(A) who is directed to admit the appeal in the light of the directions of the Hon’ble Supreme Court and decide the appeal based on merits after giving proper opportunity of being heard to the assessee. IT(IT)A No.139/Bang/2022 Page 4 of 5 7. In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced in court on 11 th day of April, 2022 Sd/- Sd/- (BEENA PILLAI) ( PADMAVATHY S) Judicial Member Accountant Member Bangalore, Dated, 11 th April, 2022 / 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. IT(IT)A No.139/Bang/2022 Page 5 of 5 1. Date of Dictation .......................................... 2. Date on which the typed draft is placed before the dictating Member ......................... 3. Date on which the approved draft comes to Sr.P.S ................................... 4. Date on which the fair order is placed before the dictating Member .................... 5. Date on which the fair order comes back to the Sr. P.S. ....................... 6. Date of uploading the order on website................................... 7. If not uploaded, furnish the reason for doing so ................................ 8. Date on which the file goes to the Bench Clerk ....................... 9. Date on which order goes for Xerox & endorsement.......................................... 10. Date on which the file goes to the Head Clerk ......................... 11. The date on which the file goes to the Assistant Registrar for signature on the order ..................................... 12. The date on which the file goes to dispatch section for dispatch of the Tribunal Order ............................... 13. Date of Despatch of Order. .....................................................