AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
PER NAVEEN CHANDRA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER :
This captioned appeal has been filed by the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), ADDL/JCIT(A), Prayagraj (hereinafter referred as ‘CIT(A)’) order dated 08.12.2025 arising from the intimation order u/s 143(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter, mentioned as ‘the Act’) dated 14.02.2021 passed by the Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, CPC, Bengaluru (‘AO’) for the Assessment Year (A.Y.) 2021-22.
Grounds of appeal filed by the assessee are as under:
1.“That on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the order dated 08.12.2025, passed by the ADDL/JCIT (A), Prayagraj, under section 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 ('the Act') is without jurisdiction, illegal, bad in law, void ab initio and liable to be quashed.
2.That the ADDL/JCIT (A) has erred in dismissing the appeal by holding that the appeal has been filed belatedly on 23.09.2022 and that the order being appealed against has been passed on 14.02.2021.
3.The Learned ADDL/JCIT (A) has erred in passing the order without examining the detailed facts of the case and the relevant documents, and has merely relied on Form-35, which contained inadvertent error, i.e., the date of order appealed against was erroneously mentioned as 14.02.2021, the actual date of order being 25.08.2022.
4.The Learned ADDL/JCIT (A) erred in holding that there was a delay, even though the appeal filed on 23.09.2022 against the order dated 25.08.2022 was well within the statutory due date.
5.The Learned ADDL/JCIT (A) has erred in law by ignoring the first ground of appeal and point no 2 of the statement of facts filed before Learned ADDL/JCIT (A), which categorically stated that the appeal was filed against the order dated 25.08.2022, and instead erroneously treated the date of order 14.02.2021, resulting in an incorrect computation of delay of 556 days.
6.The Learned ADDL/JCIT (A) has grossly erred in ignoring the order appealed against, which was annexed with form 35, which is dated 25.08.2022, clearly establishes the correct date of order.
7.The impugned order, having been passed without granting an opportunity of being heard on the issue forming the basis of rejection, is in gross violation of the principles of natural justice and is therefore unsustainable in law.
8.The impugned appellate order is non-speaking and unsustainable as the learned CIT(A) failed to deal with and decide the grounds of appeal raised by the appellant.
9.The Learned ADDL/JCIT (A) erred in law and on facts in not deciding the grounds of appeal on merits against the following additions made by the assessing officer, which had already been offered to tax by the appellant in the computation of income/ITR, resulting in impermissible double addition:
| S.No. | Particulars | Amount(Rs.) | Remarks |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1. | Any sum u/s 43B the liability for which pre-existed on the first day of the previous year but not allowed, paid during the previous year | 2,51,52,000 | As per Tax Audit Report 26(i)(A)(a), clause compensated absences of Rs.2,51,52,000/- paid during the year are allowable. AO has disallowed the same. |
| 2. | Any Amount of profit chargeable to tax under section 41 being Unclaimed balances and excess provisions written back and the same has been credited in P&L | 5,88,51,208 | This amount has already been credited to P & L Account and is exigible to tax. The same cannot be again disallowed/adjusted in the returned loss. |
| 3. | Any sum u/s 43B the liability for which pre-existed on the first day of the previous year but not allowed, paid during the previous year | 2,66,913 | As per Tax Audit Report clause 26(1)(A)(a), employees contribution paid to Labor Welfare Fund during the year are allowable. AO has disallowed the same without assigning any reason. |
| 4. | Any sum received from employees as contribution to any provident fund superannuation fund or any fund set up under ESI Act or any other fund for the welfare of employees to the extent not credited to the employees account on or before the due date [36(1)(va)] | 40,594 | This amount has already been offered for tax in the ITR under Other Information Clause 6: Amount disallowable u/s 36 (inadvertently offered for tax under sub-clause (f) instead of sub-clause (k). The AO has again added/adjusted the same to the returned loss without assigning any Since the amount has already been offered for tax, the same cannot be adjusted again against returned loss. |
| 5. | ICDS adjustments | 4,06,33,663 | In the Tax Audit Report, adjustments appearing on account of increase in profit due to ICDS adjustments clause 13(e) amounting to Rs.84,00,38,881 (including ICDS adjustment on account of Borrowing Cost of Rs.4,06,33,663 has been offered for tax in the ITR. The AO has again adjusted/added Rs.4,06,33,663 in the returned loss without assigning any reason. |
| Total | 12,49,44,378 |
At the outset, learned Counsel for the assessee stated that while filing the appeal before learned Commissioner, the assessee mentioned that the appeal is against the intimation under section 143(1) of the Act instead of order passed under section 154 of the Act. It is stated that CIT(A) dismissed the appeal of the assessee without giving a show-cause notice to the assessee and the learned AR prayed for remitting the matter back to the file of learned CIT(A).
Per contra, the ld DR did not raise any serious objection and relied on the orders of the AO/CIT(A)/NFAC.
We have heard the rival submissions and have perused the material available on record. We find that the assessee has received an order dated 25.08.2022 passed under section 154 of the Act by CPC for A.Y. 2021-22. The assessee filed an appeal before the learned CIT(A) stating that the appeal is against the intimation under section 143(1) of the Act instead of section 154 of the Act. The said appeal is disposed of by the CIT(A) ex parte, treating the appeal as time barred. We also find that the present appeal before the Tribunal against the appeal memo states that it is an appeal against the intimation under section 143(1) instead of order passed under section 154 of the Act. The assessee submitted that this aforesaid error is purely inadvertent, clerical and bonafide in nature. Considering the submissions, we take the appeal as filed against the order passed under section 154 of the Act and remit the issue back to the file of the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication. The learned CIT(A) may grant three effective opportunities to the assessee to present its case. The assessee is likewise directed to avail the opportunities and submit the documents as required. The appeal is disposed of in the aforesaid terms.
In the result, appeal filed by the assessee in ITA No.1331/Del/2026 is allowed for statistical purposes.