MONIKA INDUSTRIES,DELHI V. ITO,WARD-56(3), DELHI

ITA 4311/DEL/2024

AI Insights

The case involves Monika Industries appealing against the order of the CIT(A)/NFAC, Delhi, which dismissed their appeal in limine for being time-barred without considering the merits. The original assessment accepted the returned income of Rs. 2,81,810/- but contained errors in the tax computation sheet, leading to an incorrect tax liability being recorded. The appellant argued that these errors were apparent on the face of the record and sought rectification, which was not possible through the usual online portal due to the nature of the assessment under sections 147 and 144 of the Income Tax Act. The CIT(A) dismissed the appeal solely on the grounds of delay without addressing the substantive issues raised.

• Counselvise Citation: [2025] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 31027 (ITAT-DELHI)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 10-03-2025
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: SMC
• Assessment Year: 2018-2019
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: SANJAY KUMAR
• Assessee Lawyers: SUMIT ARORA
• Keywords: Reasonable cause; Bonafide belief; Bogus
• Section: 147; 144

Judgement Text

"IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL (DELHI BENCH ‘SMC’ : NEW DELHI) BEFORE SHRI SHAMIM YAHYA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA No. 4311/Del/2024 Asstt. Year : 2018-19 MONIKA INDUSTRIES VS. ITO, WARD 56(3), B-291, SUNDERSHAN PARK, DELHI DELHI – 15 (PAN: AAAFM4974F) (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant by : Sh. Sumit Arora, Adv. Respondent by : Sh. Sanjay Kumar, Sr. DR. Date of Hearing 10.03.2025 Date of Pronouncement 10.03.2025 ORDER This appeal has been filed by the Assessee against the order dated 29.07.2024 passed by the Ld. CIT(A)/NFAC, Delhi for AY 2018-19 on the following grounds:- 1. The order under appeal stands in violation of the principle of natural justice and is bad in law. The Hon'ble First appellate authority without issuing any notice of the date of hearing suo moto dismissed the appeal in limini without going into the merit of the case. 2. That the First Appellate Authority erred in not considering the issue raised by appellant qua the error apparent on the face of the record. It is humbly submitted that the assessing officer was pleased to pass the order in favour of the appellant and the return income of Rs. 2,81,810/- was accepted as mentioned in the operative part of the assessment order. Thus the assessment was completed without any addition. However in the Computation Sheet being part and parcel of the assessment order 2 | P a g e aggregate income tax liability was erroneously mentioned as Rs. 1,02,826/-and after set off the regular tax paid balance amount payable mentioned as Rs. 82,456/-. It is a clear cut of an error apparent on the face of the record. The perusal of the computation further reveals that the Total income tax liability as per col. No. 35 is found to be NIL however at col no. 42 it is reflecting as Rs. 1,02,826/-. Thus it's a case of human error resulting in erroneously creating a net demand Rs. 82,456/-. Thus there is error apparent on the face of the record. The learned First Appellate Authority failed to even consider this issue though the same has been agitated upon in the in the memorandum of appeal. 3. That the Hon'ble commissioner without affording any opportunity to the appellant to explain its position erroneously came to the conclusion that since appeal is late by 24 days thus the same is liable to be rejected in limini without going into the merit of case. It is submitted that with a view to claim rectification in the aforesaid computation being the error apparent on the face of the record, the appellant personally visited the office of jurisdictional officer at Delhi on 12.01.2024 and on 18.01.2024 however the learned officer was reported to be not at office as some conference with Hon'ble Commissioner was in progress. The appellant on 21.01.2024 tried to file online rectification request on portal however the same was not allowed as the assessment has been framed under section 147 read with section 144 of the Act. Finally the appellant met with the learned jurisdictional officer in the first week of February 2024 who informed him that since the assessment order was framed by national faceless assessment authority the concerned e- file has been with CPC and until E- file/rectification rights is transferred to him the rectification cannot be carried upon by him. Thus the appellant was precluded from filing rectification request. The only legal option left with appellant was to avail the remedy by filing Appeal before the First Appellant Authority. 3 | P a g e Under such circumstances the appellant filed the appeal on 21.02.2024 and had acted under the bonafide belief that the time frame to file appeal was within 60 days from the date of order which was 29.12.2023. Thus under such scenario the appellant filed the appeal on 21.02.2024 with the bonafied impression that the same can be filed within the period of 60 days. Thus the appeal before the First Appellant Authority was not accompanied by an application seeking condonation of delay. 2. The brief facts of the case are that the assesseee filed return of income on 30.10.2018 at total income of Rs. 2,81,810/-. In this case, information has been received in accordance with the Risk Management Strategy formulated by CBDT, on Insight Portal maintained by the Department, under the head CRIU/VRU, wherein as per the information received, the assessee has Bogus purchases amount of Rs. 11,46,760/-. After examining the issue, AO accepted the returned income of Rs. 2,81,810/- and passed the order u/s. 147 r.w.s. 144 read with section 144 B of the Act on 29.12.2023. Against the above, assessee submitted before the Ld. CIT(A) that in the assessment order return income was accepted and there is no addition in the order dated 29.12.2023, however in the computation sheet though in the column of tax liabilities the amount mentioned as Zero, however, in the aggregate income tax liabilities in the column no. 42 the tax payable was mentioned as Rs. 1,02,826/- and the wrong computation was shown in column no. 56 is Rs. 82456/-, which is an error on the record and since rectification in the scrutiny matter is not possible on portal, hence, assessee filed appeal before the ld. CIT(A) on 21.02.2024 and under the bonafide belief that the same can be filed within the period of 60 days. But, Ld. CIT(A) noted that since there is a delay of 24 days in filing the appeal, which he did not condone and dismissed the appeal on account of limitation. 3. Against the aforesaid order, assessee is in appeal before this Tribunal. 4 | P a g e 4. I have heard both the parties and perused the records. Upon careful consideration, I find considerable cogency in the contention of the Ld. AR that in the assessment order returned income was accepted and there was no addition in the assessment order dated 29.12.2023, however in the computation sheet though in the column of tax liabilities the amount mentioned as Zero, however, in the aggregate income tax liabilities in the column no. 42 the tax payable was mentioned as Rs. 1,02,826/- and the wrong computation was shown in column no. 56 was Rs. 82456/-, which is a mistake and since rectification in the scrutiny matter is not possible on portal, hence, assessee filed appeal before the ld. CIT(A) on 21.02.2024 under the bonafide belief that the same can be filed within the period of 60 days. However, the learned First Appellate Authority failed to even consider this issue though the same has been agitated upon in the in the memorandum of appeal and noted that since there is a delay of 24 days in filing the appeal, he did not condone the same and dismissed the appeal on account of limitation. From the above, I find that reasonable cause has been attributed for 24 days in filing the appeal before the Ld. CIT(A), which deserve to be condoned. I further find that Ld. CIT(A) has not decided the issues in dispute on merits of the case and dismissed the appeal on account of limitation. Hence, in my considered opinion, interest of justice will be served, if the delay of 24 days before the CIT(A) is condoned and Ld. CIT(A) be directed to rectify the mistake as mentioned in the grounds of appeal before him by the assessee. Hence, I condone the delay of 24 days in filing the appeal before the Ld. CIT(A) 5 | P a g e and remanded back the matter to the file of the Ld. CIT(A). Ld. CIT(A) shall consider the issues in dispute afresh, after rectify the mistake in the computation sheet and pass a speaking order, after giving adequate opportunity of being heard to the assessee, for which Ld. DR has no objection. 5. In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced in the Open Court on 10.03.2025. Sd/- (SHAMIM YAHYA) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER SRBhatnagar Copy forwarded to: - 1. Appellant 2. Respondent 3. DIT 4. CIT (A) 5. DR, ITAT TRUE COPY By Order, Assistant Registrar, ITAT, Delhi Bench "