MORADABAD BAREILLY EXPRESSWAY LIMITED ,MUMBAI V. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX -14(1)(1), MUMBAI

ITA 1915/MUM/2025

AI Insights

The case involves Moradabad Bareilly Expressway Limited, which appealed against the order of the Additional/Joint Commissioner of Income Tax -1, Noida, concerning the assessment year 2019-20. The primary contention was the dismissal of their appeal due to an alleged delay in filing, which the CIT(A) noted as more than 30 days. The assessee argued that the delay should be condoned considering the Supreme Court's order during the COVID-19 pandemic, which excluded certain periods from limitation calculations. The Tribunal agreed with the assessee, noting that the delay should be excluded as per the Supreme Court's directives and CBDT circulars, and remitted the case back to the CIT(A) for a detailed examination of the merits.

• Counselvise Citation: [2025] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 713254 (ITAT-MUMBAI)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 31-07-2025
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Assessment Year: 2019-2020
• Other Referred Cases: Suo moto Writ Petition (c) no. 3 of 2020
• Laws Referred To: Income-tax Act, 1961, Income Tax Rules 1962
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Assessee Lawyers: GIVING REASONABLE
• Keywords: Condonation of delay; Opportunity of being heard; Principle of natural justice; TDS; FORM 26AS
• Section: 244A

Judgement Text

"IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “D” BENCH MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI GIRISH AGRAWAL, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA No. 1915/MUM/2025 Assessment Year: 2019-20 Moradabad Bareilly Expressway Limited The IL&FS Financial Centre, Plot No. -22, G Block, Bandra Kurla Complex, Bandra-East, Mumbai-400051. (PAN: AAGCM3309R) Vs. Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax -14(1)(1) Room No. 432, Aayakar Bhawan, Maharishi Karve Marg, Mumbai-400020. (Appellant) (Respondent) Present for: Assessee : Mr. Sailesh Sarda. [Employee] Revenue : Shri Umashankar Prasad, CIT DR Date of Hearing : 14.07.2025 Date of Pronouncement : 31.07.2025 O R D E R PER GIRISH AGRAWAL, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER: This appeal filed by the assessee is against the order of ADDL/JCIT (A)-1, Noida, vide order no. ITBA/APL/S/250/2024- 2025/1072453887(1), dated 23.01.2025, passed against by ADIT, CPC Bengaluru u/s. 143(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the “Act”), dated 29.12.2020 for Assessment Year 2019-20. 2. Grounds taken by the Assessee are reproduced as under: “1. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Additional/Joint Commissioner of Income Tax -1, Noida ('Learned CIT(A)') erred in dismissing the Printed from counselvise.com 2 ITA No. 1915/Mum/2025 Moradabad Bareilly Expressway Limited A.Y. 2019-20 appeal filed by the Appellant, on the basis that there was delay in filing the appeal. 2. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the learned CIT(A) erred by not taking cognizance of order of Hon'ble Supreme Court dated 10 January 2022 (M.A. No. 21 of 2022) in Suo moto Writ Petition (c) no. 3 of 2020 and Circular No. 10/2021 dated 25 May 2021 issued by Central Board of Direct Taxes ('CBDT'). 3. Without prejudice to above grounds of appeal and on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the learned CIT(A) erred by violating the principal of natural justice by not providing sufficient opportunity of being heard. 4. On the facts and circumstances the Learned CIT (A) has erred by ignoring the submissions filed by the appellant on the subject matter of the appeal before the Learned CIT(A). 5. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Assistant Director of Income Tax at Centralized Processing Center - CPC Bengaluru ('Learned AO') has erred in granting and restricting the credit of Tax Deducted at Source (TDS) only to the extent of Rs. 14,06,68,775 as against Rs. 27,42,12,772 claimed in return of income resulting in a short grant of credit by Rs. 13,35,43,997. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Learned AO has erred by not appreciating that income as corresponding to TDS credit is offered to tax in accordance with section 198 read with section 199 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 ('the Act') read with Rule 37BA of the Income Tax Rules 1962 ('the Rules'). The assessee prays that TDS credit appearing and matching with Form 26AS at Rs. 27,42,12,772 be allowed in full. 6. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Learned AO has erred in raising a consequential tax demand of Rs. 1,090. 7. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Learned AO has erred by not granting full interest under section 244A of the Act.” 3. Brief facts of the case are that assessee is a public limited company engaged in the business of developing Moradabad-Barielly section of NH-24 from KM 148.000 to KM 262.000 in the state of Uttar Pradesh under NDHP phase-III on Design, Build, Finance, Operate, Transfer (DBFOT basis). Assessee filed its return of income on 30.10.2019 which was revised on 27.08.2020. Assessee had made a claim of credit of TDS at Rs. 27,53,60,106/- in its return out of which Rs. 11,47,334/- was inadvertently claimed. Thus, the claim was revised by withdrawing this amount so as to match with Form 26AS. However, while processing the Printed from counselvise.com 3 ITA No. 1915/Mum/2025 Moradabad Bareilly Expressway Limited A.Y. 2019-20 return u/s. 143(1) by Centralised Processing Centre of the Department, Bengaluru (CPC). ld. AO granted short credit of TDS to the extent of Rs. 13,35,43,997/-. Assessee contended that it has duly offered to tax, the entire income corresponding to the aforesaid TDS credit in its return. Details of TDS claimed by the assessee and reconciliation so made which were furnished before the Ld. CIT(A) are extracted below: 4. Assessee filed all the relevant documentary evidences and explanation in the course of first appellate proceedings. While disposing the appeal, ld. CIT(A) noted that there is a delay of more than 30 days in filing the appeal u/s. 249(2). He noted that the appeal was filed after Printed from counselvise.com 4 ITA No. 1915/Mum/2025 Moradabad Bareilly Expressway Limited A.Y. 2019-20 a delay of 239 days. He further noted that assessee has not acknowledged the delay in filing the appeal in Form-35 at row no. 14 where against the question of whether there is delay in filing the appeal, assessee had stated “No”. Thus, in absence of application requesting condonation of delay and failure to provide any reasons for the same, appeal of the assessee was dismissed in limine. 4.1 Before us, Ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted that the impugned intimation u/s. 143(1) issued by CPC is dated 29.12.2020 which was issued during the period of pandemic of COVID-19. Assessee asserted that the delay ought to have been condoned by taking cognizance of the order of Hon’ble Supreme Court dated 10.01.2022 in its suo-moto writ petition (c) no. 3 of 2020 and circular no. 10/2021 dated 25.05.2021 issued by Central Board of Direct Taxes (CBDT), whereby period pertaining to pandemic of COVID 19 was stated to be ignored while computing the limitation. Assessee had furnished its appeal on 28.09.2021 which also fell during the period for which Hon’ble Supreme Court had granted the benefit for excluding this period. 5. Considering the above, we are in agreement with the submission made by the Ld. Counsel whereby the delay which fell during the period of pandemic of COVID 19 as directed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court to be excluded for the purpose of computation of limitation. Accordingly, the delay at the first appellate stage ought to have been condoned by the ld. CIT(A) to take up the matter for its meritorious adjudication instead of disposing it in limine. 5.1 In the given set of facts, we condone the delay at the first appellate stage and in the interest of justice and fair play remit the matter back to the file of ld. CIT(A) for meritorious adjudication Printed from counselvise.com 5 ITA No. 1915/Mum/2025 Moradabad Bareilly Expressway Limited A.Y. 2019-20 on the grounds of appeal raised by the assessee at the first appellate stage by passing a speaking order, after taking into consideration, submissions of the assessee by giving reasonable opportunity of being heard. Assessee is also directed to be diligent in making all its submissions so as to comply with the notices for the hearing for effective and expeditious disposal of the appeal. Accordingly, grounds raised by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes. 6. In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes. Order is pronounced in the open court on 31 July, 2025 Sd/- Sd/- (Sandeep Gosain) (Girish Agrawal) Judicial Member Accountant Member Dated: 31July, 2025 Anandi.Nambi, Steno. Copy to : 1 The Appellant 2 The Respondent 3 DR, ITAT, Mumbai 4 5 Guard File CIT BY ORDER, (Dy./Asstt.Registrar) ITAT, Mumbai Printed from counselvise.com "