The Bangalore Bench of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) condoned a 38-day delay in filing an appeal by Saviynt India Pvt. Ltd., holding that the delay was due to a genuine misapprehension by the company’s Chartered Accountant (CA) who was engaged in foreign tax filings and failed to recognize the finality of an intimation under Section 143(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961.
Saviynt India Pvt. Ltd., the assessee, filed its return of income for Assessment Year 2021–22, declaring a total income of Rs. 21.8 crores. The Centralized Processing Centre (CPC), Bangalore, issued an intimation under Section 143(1) proposing an adjustment of Rs. 5.43 crores, treating GST refunds as taxable income. The company submitted a response, stating that the GST refund was not claimed as an expense and hence was not taxable.
Read More: CBIC Imposes 5-Year Anti-Dumping Duty on Textured Tempered Glass Imports from China and Vietnam [Read Notification]
CPC finalized the adjustment and raised the assessed income to Rs. 27.24 crores. The assessee filed an appeal before the CIT(A), Vadodara, but the appeal was delayed by 38 days. The delay was explained in Form 35 as due to the CA being busy with other filings. The CIT(A) found this explanation insufficient, refused to condone the delay, and dismissed the appeal without addressing the merits of the case.
India’s New Tax Era Begins – Are You Ready for the Changes? – Click Here
Before the ITAT, the assessee’s counsel submitted an affidavit from its CA, Mr. Deepak Kamath, explaining that he misunderstood the nature of the communication received on November 13, 2022. He had assumed it was a Section 143(1)(a) notice and filed a response accordingly. Only upon receiving a demand notice in January 2023 did he realize it was a final intimation under Section 143(1), and the appeal was filed within seven days thereafter.
The Revenue argued that the assessee had failed to provide sufficient cause for the delay and that the CIT(A)’s decision was justified.
Read More: CBIC exempts Basic Customs Duty on Works of art and Antiques [Read Notification]
The two-member bench comprising Prashant Maharishi (Vice President) and Soundararajan K. (Judicial Member) observed that the delay was minor, not deliberate, and properly explained. The tribunal referred to the Supreme Court’s decision in Land Acquisition Collector v. Katiji, emphasizing a justice-oriented approach to condonation of delay and the need to prefer substantial justice over procedural lapses.
The Future of Taxation is Here – Unravel the Income Tax Bill 2025! – Click Here
The tribunal held that the explanation offered was credible and supported by an affidavit. It directed the CIT(A) to condone the delay and adjudicate the matter on merits. The appeal was allowed for statistical purposes, and the case remanded for fresh consideration.
Subscribe Taxscan Premium to view the JudgmentSupport our journalism by subscribing to Taxscan premium. Follow us on Telegram for quick updates
