TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2026 (9) TMI 1622
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....(Appeals)-1, Visakhapatnam dated 6th March, 2026 passed under section 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 in Assessment Year 2017-18. 2. The facts in brief are that the assessee filed its original return of income in ITR 7 on 31.10.2017 declaring gross income of Rs. 1,11,15,332/-. The return was processed by CPC on 30.03.2019 and exemption claimed by the assessee was allowed as per Income Tax Act disallowing ineligible losses of current year of Rs. 79,93,201/-. In the processing, TDS credit of Rs. 20,22,621/- was only allowed out of total TDS claimed of Rs. 27,05,552/-. Being dissatisfied, the assessee filed rectification petition dated 30.03.2019 being dissatisfied with intimation passed under section 143(1) and the issues raised in the rec....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... condonation of delay as mentioned by the assessee, is merely a bald assertion without any basis, which is not supported by cogent and proper evidence and the same would not, as such, constitute 'sufficient cause' within the meaning of section 249(3) of the Act. The ld. Addl./JCIT(Appeals) did not condone the delay and without condoning the delay dismissed the appeal of the assessee and without going into merits of the case as there was no sufficient cause for condonation of the delay in filing of the appeal as well as negligent attitude on the part of the appellant by mentioning that this case is not fit for condonation of delay within the specified time limit before him. Moreover, after considering the submissions made by the assessee, th....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....sessee for not furnishing satisfactory explanation before him within the stipulated period of time. The appellant had demonstrated sufficient cause i.e. the cessation of employment of the Head of Finance who exclusively managed tax matters, and the delay was neither deliberate nor negligent. The CIT(Appeals) just simply upheld the order of ld. Assessing Officer and without going into merit of the case. The ld. Counsel for the assessee also pleaded that the ld. Assessing Officer in making the impugned adjustment while processing the return under section 143(1) of the Act without issuing any notice or intimation as mandated in first proviso to section 143(1)(a) thereby rendering the adjustment arbitrary, illegal and which is liable to be dele....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....IR 1938 NAG. 156, Baldeo Lal Roy -vs.- State of Bihar (1960) 11 STC 104 (Pat); (iii) Mrs. Anita Chadha -vs.- CIT 189 Taxman 300 (P&H), (iv) CIT -vs.- Maharashtra State Govt. Employee Confederation Appeal No. CC3159-3160 of 2009 23.03.2009 (SC). Therefore, the ld. D.R. pleaded to uphold the order passed by the ld. Addl./JCIT(Appeals). 7. We have heard both the sides and perused the material available on record. We find that the AO-CPC passed intimation order under section 143(1) of the Act making certain adjustments to the returned income. The assessee filed appeal before the ld. Addl/JCIT(Appeals) with a delay of 415 days. The assessee due to non-availability of accounts, remained unaware of the intimation under sect....