M/s. Igoor Seva Sahakara Sangha Niyamitha , Kodagu V. Income Tax Officer, Ward, , Madikeri

ITA 63/BANG/2024

• Counselvise Citation: [2024] 101 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 7917 (ITAT-BANGALORE)
• Duration Of Justice: 2 month(s) 30 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 09-04-2024
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: C
• Next Hearing Date: 19-03-2024
• Assessment Year: 2018-2019
• Appeal Filed On: 10-01-2024
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Keywords: Opportunity of being heard; Period of limitation; Time period of passing order; Condonation of delay

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “C” BENCH : BANGALORE BEFORE SHRI GEORGE GEORGE K., VICE PRESIDENT AND SHRI LAXMI PRASAD SAHU, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA No.63/Bang/2024 Assessment year : 2018-19 Igoor Seva Sahakara Sangha Niyamitha, Igooru – 571 251. Somwarpet Tq. Kodagu. PAN: AAAAI 0136J Vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward, Madikeri. APPELLANT RESPONDENT Appellant by : Shri Ravishankar, Advocate Respondent by : Shri V. Parithivel, Jt.CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru. Date of hearing : 20.03.2024 Date of Pronouncement : 10.04.2024 O R D E R Per Laxmi Prasad Sahu, Accountant Member This appeal is filed by the assessee against the order dated 08.11.2023 of the CIT(Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi [NFAC] for the AY 2018-19. 2. At the outset, we note that the appeal is time barred by 4 days. In this regard the assessee submitted that the case was migrated to NFAC and notices were issued to on e-mail id which was not received ITA No.63/Bang/2024 Page 2 of 4 by the assessee. When the assessee came to know that the order has been passed by the CIT(Appeals) on 08.11.2023 and the appellate order was received by the assessee presumably on 08.11.2023 and the assessee’s CA advised assessee to seek professional advice and later through the present appeal the appeal came to be filed before the Tribunal on 11.01.2024. Considering that 7 th & 8 th Jan. 2024 were holidays, the due date was 0.01.2024 and there was a delay of 02 days in filing the appeal before the ITAT. In view of the above reasons, relying on the judgment in the case of Collector, Land Acquisition v. Mst. Katiji (1987) 167 ITR 471 (SC), the ld. AR requested for condonation of delay of 2 days. 3. After considering the rival submissions and the explanation of the assessee for the delay, following the judgment in the case of Mst. Katiji (supra), the delay in filing the appeal is condoned. 4. The ld. AR submitted that the CIT(Appeals) has dismissed the appeal on the reason that the appeal is time barred by 338 days without condoning the delay and without going into the merits, whereas it was a COVID period and the assessee received the assessment order on 28.05.2021 and preferred the appeal before the CIT(Appeals) on 31.05.2022. As per the Hon’ble Supreme Court judgment in Cognizance for Extension of Limitation, In re [2022] 134taxmann.com307 (SC), it is held that where limitation would have expired during period between 15-03-2020 till 28-02-2022, notwithstanding actual balance period of limitation remaining, all ITA No.63/Bang/2024 Page 3 of 4 persons shall have a limitation period of 90 days from 01-03-2022; in event actual balance period of limitation remaining, with effect from 01-03-2022, is greater than 90 days, that longer period shall apply. This judgment has not been considered by the CIT(Appeals) and considering the same, there is actually a delay of only 02 days in the appeal before the CIT(Appeals) due to the lockdown during the COVID period and preparation of appeal. The ld. AR therefore requested for condonation of 02 days delay in filing appeal before the CIT(Appeals) and to restore the matter to the Assessing Officer for fresh consideration so that the assessee could represent its case properly before the AO. 5. The ld. DR relied on the orders of lower authorities. 6. After considering the rival submissions, we note that considering the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court (supra) regarding extension of limitation during the COVID period, the delay before the CIT(Appeals) is only two days and considering the submissions of the assessee in this regard, we condone the delay of two days in filing the appeal before the CIT(Appeals). The appeal is restored to the Assessing Officer for de novo consideration and decision as per law after giving reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee. The assessee shall produce its proper e-mail id and communication address to the department and substantiate its case before the AO with necessary evidence and not seek unnecessary adjournment for early disposal of the case. ITA No.63/Bang/2024 Page 4 of 4 7. In the result, the appeal by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes. Pronounced in the open court on this 10 th day of April, 2024. Sd/- Sd/- ( GEORGE GEORGE K. ) (LAXMI PRASAD SAHU ) VICE PRESIDENT ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Bangalore, Dated, the 10 th April, 2024. / Desai S Murthy / Copy to: 1. Appellant 2. Respondent 3. Pr. CIT 4. CIT(A) 5. DR, ITAT, Bangalore. By order Assistant Registrar ITAT, Bangalore.