Appeal against s.143(1) intimation: limitation miscalculated as 551 days instead of 4; rejection set aside, condonation reconsidered

The dominant issue was whether the first appellate authority wrongly refused to entertain the appeal by miscomputing limitation for an appeal against intimation under s. 143(1). The Tribunal held that the actual, undisputed delay in filing before the CIT(A) was only four days, and the finding of a 551-day delay was erroneous. Consequently, the impugned order was set aside and the matter remanded to the CIT(A) to decide the condonation request afresh in accordance with law, applying the SC's approach; if delay is condoned, the CIT(A) must adjudicate the appeal on merits.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the learned CIT(A) erred in computing the delay and in rejecting the assessee's application for condonation of delay in filing the appeal before CIT(A) (limitation/condonation issue).

Analysis: The Tribunal examined the filing dates, the relevant provisions governing limitation for appeals under section 253(3) of the Income-tax Act, and the impact of the Supreme Court's orders restoring the COVID-19 limitation relief (orders excluding the period 15.03.2020 to 28.02.2022 and providing the balance/90-day rule). The Tribunal noted that the learned CIT(A) had computed delay as 551 days but record showed a materially shorter delay (4 days) when the period of exclusion and the CBDT extension of the return due date are taken into account. The Tribunal also considered CPC intimation/processing under section 143(1) and the interplay of sections 139(1) and 80AC concerning admissibility of deduction under section 80P, but did not decide the substantive claim on merits for the present appeal, instead directing the learned CIT(A) to reconsider condonation in conformity with the Supreme Court's orders and, if delay is condoned, to decide the appeal on merits giving due regard to relevant precedents.

Conclusion: The Tribunal set aside the impugned CIT(A) order on the ground that the delay was erroneously computed and directed the CIT(A) to reconsider the condonation request in light of the Supreme Court's limitation-extension orders and to decide the appeal on merits if delay is condoned. This result is in favour of the appellant on the limitation/condonation issue.

---