IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, RAJKOT BENCH, RAJKOT BEFORE DR. ARJUN LAL SAINI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI DINESH MOHAN SINHA, JUDICIAL MEMBER आयकर अपील सं./ITA No. 448/RJT/2024 Assessment Year: (2019-20)

Shree Pipardi Seva Shakari Mandli Assistant Director of Income- Ltd. Vs. tax, Centralized Processing 2, Bus Stand ke pass, Rupavati, Centre (CPC), Bengaluru-560 Pipardi. B.O.Surendra Nagar-360 500

005 èथायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./PAN/GIR No.: AAOAS 7598 C (Appellant) (Respondent)

Appellant by Ms. Bhumika Kapadiya, A.R. Respondent by Shri Sanjay Pungal, CIT. DR Date of Hearing 20/02/2025 Date of Pronouncement 07/05/2025 आदेश / O R D E R PER: DINESH MOHAN SINHA, JM:

This is an appeal filed by the assessee arises against the order of the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeal)/ Addl/JCIT(A)-1, Jaipur [in short “the Ld. CIT(A)”] dated 24/04/2024 for the Assessment Year (AY) 2019-20. Grounds of appeal raised by the assessee are as follows:

“1. The Learned Commissioner (Appeals), NFAC, Delhi erred in law and in facts in dismissing the appeal as non-maintainable without condoning the delay in filing the appeal.

2. The Learned Commissioner (Appeals), NFAC, Delhi erred in not adjudicating the appeal on merits and thus failed to appreciate that deduction of Rs.17,86,130/- claimed u/s 80P could not have been denied by CPC u/s 143(1) of the Act.

3. It is therefore, prayed that the CIT(A), NFAC not having dealt with any of the grounds of appeal in the right earnest the matter may be resorted to the file of the CIT(A), NFAC.

4. Your appellant reserves his right to add, amend, alter, and/or withdraw any ground of appeal at the time of hearing of the appeal.”

2. At the outset, it is noticed that appeal of assesses is barred by 1310 days delay before filing Ld.CIT(A) who has not admitted the appeal with the provisions of Section 249(2) of the Act. The Ld. AR of the assessee submitted that the assessee has moved a petition requesting the Bench to condone the delay in filing appeal before Ld.CIT(A) and directed the Ld. CIT(A) to adjudicate the issue in accordance with law. Th contents of the petition for condoning the delay are reproduced below:

“1. The appellant has received intimation u/s 143(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 on 06/03/2020 and rectification application fled u/s 153 was rejected on 10/08/2020. The appellant was required to file appeal within 30 days i.e., on or before 09/09/2020 for which the appellant contacted his consultant to file an appeal. after which the appellant was under bona fide belief that the consultant had already filed an appeal.

2. Due to lockdown declared by the Government for Covid-19 Pandemic, and certain administrative issues and frequent changes in Chief Accountant coordination/follow up with Chartered Accountant who is looking after income tax return filing process could not be made. Affidavit in this regard will be filed whenever required. Till now, the appellant never got demand notice from the Department.

3. The appellant came to know about the outstanding demand and non filing of appeal by the previous consultant, when the demand notice for the AY 2022-23 was issued to him on 10/03/2024 approached new consultant CA Bhumika Khadawala for filing appeal against the impugned for AY 2022-23. At that time, their consultant has informed them for the impugned outstanding demand raised on account of disallowance of claim u/s 80P and non filing of appeal by the previous consultant.

4. Therefore, appeal is in fact delayed by 1310 days. However, in view of Hon’ble Supreme Court in Suo Motu Writ Petition (Civil) No.3 of 2020 (Original Order dated 15-03-202) vid final order dated 08/03/2021 cut-off date has been declared as 15/03/2021 meaning thereby that in computing the period of limitation for any suit, appeal, application or proceeding the period from 15/03/2020 till 14/03/2021 shall stand excluded”. (Now extend up to 28/02/2022 as per SC order). Held that in cases where the limitation expiring during the period between