2025 (10) TMI 133 - AT - Income Tax

Appeal held timely under section 249(2) due to late service of intimation order; case remanded for merits (2)

ITAT held the appeal was within time because the intimation order dated 13 Sept 2022 was served on the assessee only on 11 May 2023, making the 9 June ... Condonation of delay in filing the appeal - actual date of service of the intimation order u/s 143(1) - non-admission of the appeal by the Ld. CIT(A) due to the alleged filing of the appeal after the expiry of the limitation period prescribed u/s 249(2) - HELD THAT:- As unequivocally established that the intimation order dated 13th September 2022 was served upon the assessee only on 11th May 2023. Consequently, the appeal filed by the assessee before the Ld. CIT(A) on 9th June 2023 falls well within the statutory limitation period of 30 days, as prescribed u/s 249(2) of the Act. CIT(A), in rejecting the appeal as time-barred, has thus erred in not appreciating the correct factual position regarding the date of service of the intimation order. Accordingly, the finding of the Ld. CIT(A) on this issue is hereby set aside. Since the CIT(A) has not adjudicated the appeal on the merits of the grounds raised therein, the matter is remitted back to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication, confined to the merits of the grounds raised before him. Appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes. ISSUES PRESENTED AND CONSIDERED 1. Whether the intimation under section 143(1) of the Act dated 13.09.2022 was served on the assessee on the date of issuance or on a later date, and whether the factual date of service determines the limitation for filing an appeal under section 249(2) of the Act. 2. Whether the learned Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) erred in refusing to admit and dismissing the appeal as time-barred when the appeal was filed within 30 days from the actual date of service, and whether failure by the assessee to file a formal condonation application affects admission where the record establishes timely service. ISSUE-WISE DETAILED ANALYSIS Issue 1 - Factual date of service of intimation under section 143(1) and its effect on limitation under section 249(2) Legal framework: Limitation for preferring an appeal against an intimation under section 143(1) is governed by section 249(2) of the Act, which prescribes a period of 30 days from the date of service of the intimation. Service by Central Processing Centre (CPC) via electronic dispatch (email/SMS) is relevant for determining the date of service. Precedent treatment: No precedents were cited in the judgment; the Tribunal proceeded on statutory interpretation and documentary proof from departmental records. Interpretation and reasoning: The Tribunal directed the Departmental Representative to produce evidence of actual service. The Assessing Officer produced a report extracted from the CPC 2.0 Portal showing initiation and delivery status on 11.05.2023 with mode of dispatch as Email/SMS and status as SUCCESS to the email ID and mobile number furnished in the return. On that documentary basis, the Tribunal concluded the intimation was served on 11.05.2023 (not immediately on 13.09.2022). The Tribunal treated the CPC portal records and AO's report as conclusive contemporaneous evidence of date of electronic service. Ratio versus obiter: Ratio - documentary evidence of electronic dispatch and delivery on the CPC portal establishes the date of service for purposes of computing limitation under section 249(2). Obiter - none material beyond the application of the record to the facts. Conclusion: The intimation dated 13.09.2022 was served upon the assessee on 11.05.2023; therefore the 30-day limitation under section 249(2) began from 11.05.2023. Issue 2 - Admissibility of appeal where appeal was filed within 30 days of actual service; effect of absence of a formal condonation application Legal framework: Admission of an appeal before the Commissioner (Appeals) depends on compliance with statutory limitation (section 249(2)). Courts/tribunals may, where delay exists, consider condonation applications; however, if appeal is within the statutory period computed from actual service date, no condonation is necessary. Precedent treatment: No judicial authorities were applied; the Tribunal relied on the statutory scheme and the record establishing service date. Interpretation and reasoning: The assessee filed the appeal on 09.06.2023. Accepting the AO's report that service occurred on 11.05.2023, the Tribunal found the appeal was filed within the 30-day statutory period. The Tribunal further observed that the assessee had not filed a formal condonation application because, on the factual showing, none was required. The learned CIT(A)'s finding that the intimation was served immediately after issuance (thereby making the appeal time-barred) was held to be a factual error not supported by the CPC portal record and the AO's report. Because the CIT(A) rejected the appeal on the mistaken conclusion about service date and did not adjudicate the merits, the Tribunal set aside that finding. Ratio versus obiter: Ratio - where contemporaneous departmental records (CPC portal/AO report) establish a later electronic service date, the appeal filed within 30 days of that date is admissible and need not be accompanied by a condonation application. Obiter - procedural admonition that if delay is actually present, a condonation application should be filed; however, this was not decisive for the result. Conclusion: The learned CIT(A) erred in declining to admit the appeal. The appeal filed on 09.06.2023 was within the statutory period calculated from the established service date of 11.05.2023 and therefore is to be admitted for adjudication on merits. Remedial Disposition and Consequences Interpretation and reasoning: Because the learned CIT(A) dismissed the appeal as unadmitted and did not consider the merits of the grounds raised (relating inter alia to adjustments made by CPC, disallowances under section 43B, and depreciation differences), the Tribunal remitted the matter to the learned CIT(A) for fresh adjudication confined to the merits of the grounds originally raised before him. The Tribunal treated Grounds 2 and 3 as alternative and therefore infructuous pending fresh adjudication on the merits. Ratio versus obiter: Ratio - erroneous rejection of an appeal as time-barred where record shows timely service warrants setting aside and remittal for adjudication on merits. Obiter - none additional. Conclusion: The finding of the learned CIT(A) that the appeal was time-barred is set aside; the appeal is restored to be heard on merits by the learned CIT(A). Grounds raising substantive adjustments and disallowances are remitted for fresh consideration and are dismissed as infructuous in the present appellate admission appeal. Practical holdings 1. CPC 2.0 Portal evidence and the AO's report showing initiation and delivery (email/SMS) on a specific date constitute acceptable proof of electronic service for computation of limitation under section 249(2). 2. Where documentary records establish the date of service falls within a later period, an appeal filed within 30 days of that date is maintainable even if no separate condonation application was filed. 3. An appellate authority's dismissal of an appeal as time-barred on incorrect factual findings about service date must be set aside and the matter remitted for adjudication on merits.