JOHNSON PAUL IRENE PAUL,HOSUR V. ITO, WARD-1, HOSUR

ITA 1230/CHNY/2025

AI Insights

The case involves an appeal by the assessee, Johnson Paul Irene Paul, against the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi, which dismissed the assessee's appeal as barred by limitation. The original assessment was completed under sections 143(3), 263, and 144B of the Income Tax Act, 1961, on 20.09.2021, with various additions made. The assessee's subsequent appeal was initially dismissed due to a delay of 113 days, which the CIT(A) found insufficiently justified. The assessee argued that the delay was primarily due to the COVID-19 lockdown, referencing a Supreme Court judgment that extended limitation periods for legal proceedings due to the pandemic. The Tribunal found the assessee's reasons for the delay to be bona fide and within the extended limitation period specified by the Supreme Court, thus allowing the appeal for statistical purposes and remanding the case back to the CIT(A) for a decision on the merits.

• Counselvise Citation: [2025] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 706083 (ITAT-CHENNAI)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 30-06-2025
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Partly Allowed
• Assessment Year: 2015-2016
• Other Referred Cases: Miscellaneous Petition No.21 of 2022 in Suo Motu Writ Petition (C) No.3 of 2020
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act, 1961
• Result in Favour of: Partly Allowed
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: VIJAY KUMAR
• Assessee Lawyers: G. BASKAR
• Keywords: Condonation of delay; Opportunity of being heard; Period of limitation; Principle of natural justice; Time period of passing order
• Section: 143(3)

Judgement Text

"आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, ’डी’ Ɋायपीठ, चेɄई IN THE INCOME-TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ‘D’ BENCH, CHENNAI ŵी एस.एस. िवʷनेũ रिव, Ɋाियक सद˟ एवं ŵी जगदीश, लेखा सद˟ क े समƗ । Before Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi, Judicial Member & Shri Jagadish, Accountant Member आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.1230/Chny/2025 िनधाŊरण वषŊ/Assessment Year: 2015-16 Johnson Paul Irene Paul, Plot No. 143, Sipcot Staff Housing Colony, Mookandapalli, Hosur 635 126. [PAN:ABCPI4853J] Vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward 1, Hosur. (अपीलाथŎ/Appellant) (ŮȑथŎ/Respondent) अपीलाथŎ की ओर से / Appellant by : Shri G. Baskar, Advocate ŮȑथŎ की ओर से/Respondent by : Shri Vijay Kumar, JCIT सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date of hearing : 18.06.2025 घोषणा की तारीख /Date of Pronouncement : 30.06.2025 आदेश /O R D E R PER S.S. VISWANETHRA RAVI, JUDICIAL MEMBER: This appeal filed by the assessee is directed against the order dated 22.03.2024 passed by the ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi for the assessment year 2015-16. 2. We find that this appeal is filed with a delay of 334 days. The assessee filed an affidavit for condonation of delay stating the reasons. Upon hearing both the parties and on examination of the said affidavit, we I.T.A. No.1230/Chny/25 2 find the reasons stated by the assessee are bonafide, which really prevented in filing the appeal in time. Thus, the delay is condoned and admitted the appeal for adjudication. 3. The only issue emanates for our consideration as to whether the ld. CIT(A) is justified in dismissing the appeal as barred by limitation. 4. We note that the assessment was completed under section 143(3) r.w.s. 263 r.w.s. 144B of the Income Tax Act, 1961 [“Act” in short] dated 20.09.2021 by making various additions against which the assessee preferred further appeal before the ld. CIT(A) on 10.02.2022. By rejecting the condonation petition for the delay in filing the appeal, the ld. CIT(A) dismissed the appeal of the assessee as no sufficient cause for the delay was shown by the assessee for the delay of 113 days. On being aggrieved, the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal. 5. The ld. AR Shri G. Baskar, Advocate submits that delay in filing of appeal is mainly due to lockdown imposed by the Govt. on account of spread of Covid-19 infections and which needs to be excluded for computing limitation in view of judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Miscellaneous Petition No.21 of 2022 in Suo Motu Writ Petition (C) No.3 of 2020, and if the period of delay is covered within the period specified in I.T.A. No.1230/Chny/25 3 the order of the Apex Court, then, same needs to be condoned in view of specific problem faced by the public on account of Covid-19 pandemic. 6. The ld. DR Shri Vijay Kumar, JCIT fairly conceded the submissions of the ld. AR. 7. Heard both the parties and perused the material available on record. We note that against the assessment order under section 143(3) r.w.s. 263 r.w.s. 144B of the Act dated 20.09.2021, the assessee preferred further appeal before the ld. CIT(A) on 10.02.2022. We further noted that delay noticed by the ld.CIT(A) pertains to the period of general exemption provided by the Hon'ble Supreme Court vide its judgement dated 10.01.2022 in Miscellaneous Petition No.21 of 2022 in Suo Motu Writ Petition (C) No.3 of 2020 extending limitation period applicable for all proceedings before Courts and Tribunals across the country on account of spread of Covid-19 infections w.e.f.15.03.2020, till 28.02.2022. Thus, considering facts and circumstances of the case and also in the interest of natural justice, we direct the ld. CIT(A) to condone the delay and adjudicate the issues on merits by affording reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee. The assessee is at liberty to file the details and documentary evidences to substantiate his case before the ld. I.T.A. No.1230/Chny/25 4 CIT(A). Thus, the ground raised by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes. 8. In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced on 30th June, 2025 at Chennai. Sd/- Sd/- (JAGADISH) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER (S.S. VISWANETHRA RAVI) JUDICIAL MEMBER Chennai, Dated, 30.06.2025 Vm/- आदेश की Ůितिलिप अŤेिषत/Copy to: 1. अपीलाथŎ/Appellant, 2.ŮȑथŎ/ Respondent, 3. आयकर आयुƅ/CIT, Chennai/Madurai/Coimbatore/Salem 4. िवभागीय Ůितिनिध/DR & 5. गाडŊ फाईल/GF. "