MAHARASHTRA STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION, MUMBAI V. DCIT (EXEMPTION)-2(1), MUMBAI

ITA 1801/MUM/2023

AI Insights

The case involves the Maharashtra State Road Transport Corporation (the appellant) challenging an order by the Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemptions), which was upheld by the learned CIT(A). The primary contention was the dismissal of the appellant's appeal due to alleged delay in filing, attributed to the COVID-19 pandemic. The appellant argued that the delay was caused by government-imposed lockdown restrictions, which prevented timely filing. The Tribunal considered the Supreme Court's directive that excluded the period of lockdown from limitation calculations and found the appeal to be timely filed. Consequently, the Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s order and remanded the case for a fresh decision on the merits.

• Counselvise Citation: [2023] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 125797 (ITAT-MUMBAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 2 month(s) 14 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 01-08-2023
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: D
• Next Hearing Date: 31-07-2023
• Assessment Year: 2012-2013
• Appeal Filed On: 18-05-2023
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act, 1961
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Keywords: Opportunity of being heard; Difference of opinion; Change of opinion; Set aside
• Section: 147; 143(3); 250

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “D” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI B.R. BASKARAN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI SANDEEP SINGH KARHAIL, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA no.1801/Mum./2023 (Assessment Year : 2012–13) Maharashtra State Road Transport Corp. 2, Maharashtra Vahatuk Bhavan Dr. Anandrao Nair Marg Mumbai 400 008 PAN – AAACM4699J ................ Appellant v/s Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemp.) Circle–2(1), Mumbai ................ Respondent Assessee by : Shri Prateek Jain Revenue by : Smt. Mahita Nair Date of Hearing – 01/08/2023 Date of Order – 02/08/2023 O R D E R PER SANDEEP SINGH KARHAIL, J.M. The present appeal has been filed by the assessee challenging the impugned order dated 20/03/2023, passed under section 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 ("the Act") by the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi, [“learned CIT(A)”], for the assessment year 2012–13. 2. In its appeal, the assessee has raised the following grounds:– “1. On the facts and circumstances of the appellant's case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) erred in passing an ex-parte order, without giving the appellant an adequate opportunity of being heard. Maharashtra State Road Transport Corp. ITA no.1801/Mum./2023 Page | 2 2. On the facts and circumstances of the appellant's case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) erred in not condoning the delay in filing the appeal, without affording any opportunity, for reasons mentioned in the impugned order or otherwise. 3. On the facts and circumstances of the appellant's case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) erred in confirming the action of Ld. AO in passing the order u/s 147, which is mere change of opinion and therefore the reopening is bad in law. 4. On the facts and circumstances of the appellant's case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) erred in confirming the action of Ld. AO in calculating the total income at Rs.1,98,95,98,100/– without appreciating the fact that the addition to the extent of Rs.191,74,66,100/- has already been deleted by the Hon'ble Mumbai Tribunal vide its order dated 08.08.2.019, for the reasons mentioned in impugned order or otherwise. 5. On the facts and circumstances of the appellant's case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) erred confirming the action of Ld. AO inmaking an addition of Rs.7,21,32,000/- on account of difference in scrap sales, mentioned in impugned order or otherwise. 6. The appellant craves leaves to alter, amend, withdraw or substitute any ground or grounds or to add any new ground or grounds of appeal on or before the hearing. The appellant prays this Hon'ble Tribunal to delete the disallowance made by the Learned Assessing Officer, which is confirmed by the Learned CIT(A).” 2. During the hearing, the learned Authorised Representative (“learned AR”) at the outset submitted that the learned CIT(A) vide impugned order dismissed the appeal filed by the assessee on the ground of delay in filing the appeal. The learned AR further submitted that the copy of the assessment order was received by the assessee on 11/03/2020 pursuant to its letter dated 13/03/2020 and thereafter the assessee filed the appeal on 22/12/2020 before the learned CIT(A). The learned AR submitted that due to the Covid-19 pandemic, the assessee could not file the appeal within the prescribed time of 30 days from the date of receipt of the order. 3. On the other hand, the learned Departmental Representative vehemently relied upon the impugned order passed by the learned CIT(A). Maharashtra State Road Transport Corp. ITA no.1801/Mum./2023 Page | 3 4. We have considered the submissions of both sides and perused the material available on record. From the perusal of the letter dated 11/03/2020, furnished during the hearing by the learned AR, we find that since the assessee did not receive assessment order dated 26/12/2019 passed under section 143(3) read with section 147 of the Act, as the same was returned undelivered by post, it filed a letter with the Assessing Officer to seek the copy of the aforesaid assessment order. As per the assessee, it received the assessment order on 13/03/2020. Therefore, as per the provisions of section 249(2) of the Act, the assessee was required to file the appeal within a period of 30 days from the date of receipt of the assessment order. However, from the record, it is evident that the assessee filed the appeal before the learned CIT(A) on 22/12/2020. We find from the record that the assessee also filed an application dated 21/12/2020 before the learned CIT(A) seeking condonation of delay in filing the appeal, wherein the assessee submitted that the delay is caused due to the Covid-19 pandemic as its establishment, which is a public corporation, was subject to government-imposed lockdown restrictions and therefore the appeal could not be filed within the prescribed time. However, the learned CIT(A) dismissed the appeal filed by the assessee on the ground of delay. The learned CIT(A) held that the Covid-19 lockdown happened only by the end of March 2020 and therefore this ground taken by the assessee is unreliable. 5. We find that the Hon'ble Supreme Court vide order dated 10/01/2022, in M.A. no.21 of 2022, in M.A. no.665 of 2021, in Suo–Motu Writ Petition (Civil) no.3 of 2020, directed that the period from 15/03/2020 till 28/02/2022, shall Maharashtra State Road Transport Corp. ITA no.1801/Mum./2023 Page | 4 stand excluded for the purpose of limitation as may be prescribed under any general or special laws in respect of all judicial and quasi-judicial proceedings. As the due date for filing the appeal before the learned CIT(A) was falling within the aforesaid time-period, in view of the order passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court, we are of the considered view that the appeal filed before the learned CIT(A) on 22/12/2020 is not delayed. Therefore, the impugned order passed by the learned CIT(A) dismissing the appeal filed by the assessee on the ground of delay is set aside. Since the learned CIT(A) has not decided the appeal filed by the assessee on merits, we deem it fit and proper to restore the matter to the file of the learned CIT(A) for de novo adjudication of the appeal on merits after consideration of all the details/submissions as may be filed by the assessee. Needless to mention that no order shall be passed without affording reasonable opportunity of hearing to the parties. Further, the assessee is directed to appear before the learned CIT(A) on all the dates of hearing as may be fixed without any default. 6. In the result, the appeal by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced in the open Court on 02/08/2023 Sd/- B.R. BASKARAN ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Sd/- SANDEEP SINGH KARHAIL JUDICIAL MEMBER MUMBAI, DATED: 02/08/2023 Maharashtra State Road Transport Corp. ITA no.1801/Mum./2023 Page | 5 Copy of the order forwarded to: (1) The Assessee; (2) The Revenue; (3) The PCIT / CIT (Judicial); (4) The DR, ITAT, Mumbai; and (5) Guard file. True Copy By Order Pradeep J. Chowdhury Sr. Private Secretary Assistant Registrar ITAT, Mumbai