No delay in filing appeal as CPC intimation u/s 143(1) received on email after 30 days

There was no delay in filing appeal before CIT(A) as CPC intimation u/s 143(1) received on email after 30 days – ITAT

In a recent judgment, ITAT Cochin has held that there was no delay in filing of appeal by assessee as CPC email of intimation u/s 143(1) was received after 30 days and the assessee within 30 days from the date of receipt of the order, filed the appeal.

ABCAUS Case Law Citation:
4387 (2025) (01) abcaus.in ITAT

In the instant case, the assessee had challenged the order passed by the CIT(A) National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC) wherein the appeal filed by the assessee against the intimation passed u/s 143(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (the Act) was dismissed on account of delay.

The main grievance of the assessee was with respect to disallowance made by CPC as per intimation u/s. 143(1) of the Act in respect of contribution of group gratuity fund of and ESI contribution.

The assessee was a company engaged in the business of manufacture & sale of tyre retreading material. Its return of income was processed by CPC and intimation u/s 143(1) was issued wherein the group gratuity contribution was disallowed as the claim was found to be inconsistent with Tax Audit Report / Form 3CD.  Further ESI contribution was also disallowed on the ground that same has been paid after the due date.

The assessee aggrieved with the same preferred appeal before the CIT(A). The CIT(A) instead of deciding the issue on merits of the case, held that in Form 35 assessee has mentioned the date of service of intimation as 20^th November, whereas intimation was dated 17^th October.  Therefore, according to him, there was a delay of 34 days in filing of the appeal.

The CIT(A) held that CPC issues the intimation which is system generated and served immediately on the email of assessee on real time basis.  Therefore, when intimation was dated 17^th October, the date of service of intimation mentioned in Form 35 is was incorrect. 

Therefore, according to CIT(A) there was an inordinate delay of 34 days for which there was no condonation petition was filed showing sufficient cause for the delay in filing of appeal, the appeal of assessee was thus dismissed.

Before the Tribunal, the assessee contended that it received intimation only on 21st November at 4.35 AM and to support his contention, he submitted copy of Gmail wherein the date of receipt of email was stated to be Nov. 21 at 4.35 AM.  He therefore submitted that finding of CIT(A) that email is generated immediately as soon as the intimation u/s. 143(1) is uploaded by the CPC is incorrect. Therefore, there was no delay in filing the appeal before the CIT(A) and hence the order of CIT(A) dismissing the appeal of assessee as delayed was incorrect.

The Tribunal noted that assessee had produced copy of email wherein the intimation was received on 21^st November and if that date of receipt of order is considered, there was no delay in filing of appeal by assessee before the CIT(A).  Also, there was no evidence that assessee had received the order on the date on which the CPC passed the order. 

Accordingly, the Tribunal restored the appeal back to the file of CIT(A) to decide it on merits.

Download Full Judgment Click Here >>

• Notice u/s 148 set-aside as assessee’s e-mail was inactive and notices went un-noticed
• AO after dropping an issue for lack of evidence may re-open it on gathering information
• Jewellery converted into solid gold not unexplained or in excess of permissible limit
• A luxury litigant assessee cannot be given a second innings to make good its case – ITAT
• 20% profit rate appropriate on cash deposit in bank representing business receipts – ITAT