SYED MOHAMMAD MAYAR HUSAIN RIZVI,PANCHKULA V. ADIT, CPC, BANGALURU, BANGALURU

ITA 89/LKW/2025

AI Insights

The case involves Sayed Mohammad Mayar Husain Rizvi, a salaried employee, who filed an appeal against the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) for the assessment year 2011-12. The original and revised returns filed by the assessee were not processed by the CPC, leading to a delay in filing the appeal. The CIT(A) dismissed the appeal on the grounds of limitation without deciding on the merits. The assessee, aggrieved by this decision, approached the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, which found merit in the assessee's reasons for the delay and directed the CIT(A) to reconsider the appeal.

• Counselvise Citation: [2025] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 772648 (ITAT-LUCKNOW)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 26-08-2025
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Partly Allowed
• Assessment Year: 2011-2012
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act
• Result in Favour of: Partly Allowed
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: REVENUE; PRAJESH SRIVASTAVA
• Keywords: Condonation of delay; Set aside; Opportunity of being heard; Revised return
• Section: 119(2)(b)

Judgement Text

"I.T.A. No.89/Lkw/2025 Assessment Year:2011-12 1 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL LUCKNOW BENCH ‘B’, LUCKNOW BEFORE SHRI ANADEE NATH MISSHRA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI SUBHASH MALGURIA, JUDICIAL MEMBER I.T.A. No.89/Lkw/2025 Assessment year:2011-12 Sayed Mohammad Mayar Husain Rizvi, C/o CA Vigyan Arora, SCO-7, 2nd Floor, Swastik Vihar, Sector-5, MDC, Panchkula. PAN:APTPR9698P Vs. Dy.C.I.T., Circle-1(1), Kanpur. (Appellant) (Respondent) O R D E R PER SUBHASH MALGURIA:J.M. This appeal vide I.T.A. No.89/Lkw/2025 has been filed by the assessee for assessment year 2011-12 against impugned order dated 18/10/2024 (DIN & Order No.ITBA/APL/S/250/2024-25/1069778377(1) of Commissioner of Income Tax [“CIT” for short]. Appellant by None Respondent by Shri Prajesh Srivastava, Sr. D.R. Printed from counselvise.com I.T.A. No.89/Lkw/2025 Assessment Year:2011-12 2 2. The appeal filed by the assessee is beyond the time limit prescribed u/s 253(3) of the I. T. Act. An affidavit dated 10/03/2025 was filed by the assessee requesting for condonation of delay in filing of the appeal. Giving detailed description of the facts and circumstances, which caused the delay in filing of the appeal, the assessee has submitted that reasons for late filing of the appeal were really beyond her control and requested that the delay in filing the appeal may be condoned. The learned D.R. for Revenue expressed no objection to condonation of delay and admitting the appeal for hearing. In view of the foregoing, and being convinced with the reasons given by assessee, the delay in filing of the appeal is condoned and the appeal is admitted for decision on merits. 3. In this case the assessee is a salaried employee and filed his return for the year under consideration on 09/09/2012 declaring total income at Rs.1,90,51,915/- which was revised on 10/09/2012 declaring total income of Rs.16,54,877/-. The Assessing Officer processed the original return filed by the assessee and passed assessment order u/s 143(1) of the Act and created a demand of Rs.76,62,535/-. Being aggrieved, the assessee carried the matter in appeal before the learned CIT(A). The learned CIT(A) dismissed the appeal of the assessee. The learned CIT(A) did not decide the assessee’s appeal on merits. The assessee’s appeal was dismissed by learned CIT(A) on grounds of limitation. The assessee had requested for condonation of delay on the ground that the delay in filing the appeal before the learned CIT(A) was due to the non-processing of revised return by the CPC. The assessee had filed request for condonation of delay u/s 119(2)(b) of the Act before the learned CIT(A), copy of which is placed at pages 30 to 38 of the paper book. However, the request of the assessee for condonation of delay was not considered favourably by the learned CIT(A) and the assessee’s appeal was dismissed treating the same as inadmissible on Printed from counselvise.com I.T.A. No.89/Lkw/2025 Assessment Year:2011-12 3 grounds of limitation. Aggrieved, the assessee has filed the present appeal in Income Tax Appellate Tribunal. 4. At the time of hearing before us, the assessee was represented by none. In the absence of any representation from the assessee’s side, we heard learned Departmental Representative and perused the materials on record. 5. On perusal of records, we find that the assessee had submitted before the learned CIT(A) that the delay in filing the appeal before the learned CIT(A) was due to the non-processing of revised return by the CPC. The assessee is a salaried person, filed his return of income on 09/09/2012 and thereafter revised the said return on 10/09/2012 and even further revised the said return on 01/07/2013. However, the revised returns have not been processed by CPC. The assessee had filed application before the learned CIT(A) for condonation of delay (paper book pages 30-38) giving detailed description for delay in filing of the return. However, the request of the assessee for condonation of delay was rejected and the appeal was dismissed. In view of the foregoing, we are satisfied within the meaning of section 249(3), that the assessee had sufficient cause for not presenting the appeal in the office of the learned CIT(A) within prescribed time limit. Accordingly, it is held that this was a fit case for the learned CIT(A) to condone the delay in filing the appeal in his office and to admit the appeal. 6. In view of the foregoing, the impugned appellate order dated 18/10/2024 of the learned CIT(A) is set aside and he is directed to decide the assessee’s appeal after due consideration of assessee’s application seeking condonation of delay in filing of the appeal in the office of the learned CIT(A). Accordingly, the learned CIT(A) is directed to pass de novo Printed from counselvise.com I.T.A. No.89/Lkw/2025 Assessment Year:2011-12 4 order in accordance with law after affording reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee. 7. In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes. (Order pronounced in the open court on 26/08/2025) Sd/. Sd/. (ANADEE NATH MISSHRA) (SUBHASH MALGURIA) Accountant Member Judicial Member Dated:26/08/2025 *Singh Copy of the order forwarded to : 1. The Appellant 2. The Respondent. 3. Concerned CIT 4. D.R., I.T.A.T., Lucknow Printed from counselvise.com "