TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2025 (10) TMI 340
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ellant, bad in law and against the principles of natural justice, thus liable to be quashed. B. Rejection of petition for condonation of delay in filing appeal by Ld. CIT(A) [being Appeal no. ADDL/JCIT (A)-cg MIJMBAI/iooi9/2021-221: 9, 1. That on the facts and in circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) erred in rejecting the petition for condonation of delay in filing appeal against the intimation issued under section 143(1) of the Act dated March 16, 2023 ('the Intimation'), despite the fact that the Appellant demonstrated sufficient cause for nonfiling of the appeal within the prescribed period of limitation. 2. That on the facts and in circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) erred in holding that there is no sufficient cause for delay in filing appeal even after acknowledging that the delay was attributable to the alternative remedies for relief being sought by the Appellant before the tax authorities' sub-ordinate to the Ld. CIT(A). 3. That on the facts and in circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) erred in not appreciating the fact that the delay was on account of alternate remedies being p....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....9,15,48,263.00 only. However, while processing the return under Section 143(1) of the Income Tax Act, the Centralized Processing Center (CPC) proposed a revised income of Rs. 54,43,63,894.00 only. This adjustment included a disallowance of Rs. 5,28,15,631/- on account of the non-payment of employee bonus or commission as reported in the tax audit report. 5. In response to the CPC's proposal, the assessee submitted that the payable amount of Rs. 5,28,15,631/- had been paid on 28-10-2022. Accordingly, the assessee did not disallow this amount in its income tax return, as per the provisions of section 43B of the Act. 6. Despite the submission, the CPC, without considering the assessee's explanation, processed the return and computed the income at Rs. 54,43,63,894/-, as per its intimation dated 16-03-2023. 7. Subsequently, the assessee filed a rectification request under section 154 of the Act on 14-04-2023, requesting a reprocessing of the return to correct the erroneous disallowance of the bonus payable amounting to Rs. 5,28,15,631/- only. However, the CPC rejected this rectification request through its order dated 18-07-2023. 8. The aggrieved assessee filed an ap....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....medy of representing its case before the AO, CPC under Section 154 of the Act. 9.4 It is evident from the petition and the detailed chart provided by the assessee that the decision to file an appeal against the intimation under Section 143(1) of the Act was an afterthought. Additionally, the Learned CIT(A) relied on the various case laws in the context of Limitation Act where it was reiterated the importance of adhering to statutory limitation periods, which ensure legal certainty and fairness. While delays might occasionally seem unfair, courts cannot override statutory limits unless compelling reasons exist. The ruling emphasizes that although courts have the discretion to extend deadlines, such power must be exercised sparingly and only when strong justifications are presented. Hence, the ld. CIT-A dismissed the appeal of the assessee. Being aggrieved by the order of the Ld. CIT(A), the assessee is in appeal before us. 9.5 The learned AR before us filed a paper book running from pages 1 to 236 and contended that the assessee was pursuing the matter against the intimation passed under section 143(1) of the Act under the provisions of section 154 of the Act. Similarly, once,....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....2023. Meantime, the case was selected under scrutiny on 02-06-2023, and the assessee believed that the matter of adjustment may be resolved during the assessment proceedings under section 143(3) of the Act. 11.2 Thus, from the action of the assessee, it is transpired that delay was neither deliberate nor intentional but arose from a bona fide belief that the adjustments could be resolved during the assessment proceedings. In holding so, we also draw support and guidance from the judgment of Hon'ble Gujarat High Court in case of Gujarat Electricity Board reported in 36 taxmann.com 340 where it was held that the principle of substantial justice must prevail over technicalities. The relevant finding of the Hon'ble Gujarat High Court is extracted as under: 5. We are conscious that there was considerable delay in filing the appeal before the Tribunal. However, the Courts have been viewing delay, particularly when the same is well explained, rather liberally. When the cause of substantial justice is pitted against technicalities, the Courts are largely reluctant to terminate legal proceedings on technical grounds. In the present case, there was sufficient explanation rendered....