AA282 KOLAPPALUR PRIMARY AGRICULTURAL COOP CREDIT SOCIETY LIMITED,ERODE vs. ITO WARD 2(1), ERODE

PDF · subscribers
ITA 815/CHNY/2023Status: DisposedITAT Chennai28 August 2023AY 2018-192 pages

In favour of the assessee: the assessee's appeal was allowed. From the AI summary of this appeal.

AI SummaryAllowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal and restored the matter to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication. The assessee was directed to substantiate its case and seek condonation of delay for the return of income.

What were the facts?

The assessee claimed deduction under Section 80P(2)(a)(i), which was denied by the CPC for not filing the return within the due date. The appeal was dismissed by the CIT(A) due to the assessee's non-appearance.

What were the issues?

Whether the deduction under Section 80P(2)(a)(i) can be denied for delayed filing of return, and whether the appeal dismissed for non-appearance should be restored.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 80P(2)(a)(i),Section 143(1),Section 139(1)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “C” BENCH, CHENNAI

Before: HON’BLE SHRI V. DURGA RAO, JM & HON’BLE SHRI MANOJ KUMAR AGGARWAL, AM

O R D E R Manoj Kumar Aggarwal (Accountant Member) 1. Aforesaid appeal by assessee for Assessment Year (AY) 2018-19 arises out of the order of learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi [CIT(A)] dated 21-03-2022 in the matter of an intimation issued by CPC u/s 143(1) 31-05-2019. The CPC has denied deduction as claimed by the assessee u/s 80P(2)(a)(i) due to the fact that return of income was not filed within due date u/s 139(1). The appeal has been dismissed since the assessee failed to appear during appellate proceedings.

2.

The Registry has noted delay of 419 days in the appeal, the condonation of which has been sought by Ld. AR on the strength of condonation petition. It has been submitted that the delay occurred since the proceedings were faceless and the assessee was not aware of the dismissal of the appeal. Though Ld. DR opposed condonation, however, keeping in view the pleadings and considering the above stated facts, the bench formed an opinion that the delay was to be condoned and accordingly, we proceed for adjudication of appeal on merits.

3.

The ld. AR, at the outset, made prayer to restore the appeal back to the file of Ld. CIT(A) since the assessee failed to make any appearance therein. Accepting the same, the appeal is restored back to the file of Ld. CIT(A) for fresh adjudication with a direction to the assessee to substantiate its case. The assessee is also free to seek condonation of delay for return of income before appropriate authority. 4. The appeal stand allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced on 28th August, 2023. (V. DURGA RAO) (MANOJ KUMAR AGGARWAL) "ाियक सद /JUDICIAL MEMBER लेखासद / ACCOUNTANT MEMBER चे4ई Chennai; िदनांक Dated : 28-08-2023 DS आदेशकीTितिलिपअ%ेिषत/Copy of the Order forwarded to : 1. अपीलाथ"/Appellant 2. !"थ"/Respondent 3. आयकरआयु=/CIT 4. िवभागीय!ितिनिध/DR 5. गाडBफाईल/GF

More judgments on Section 80P(2)(a)(i)

All 2,347 judgments and leading authorities on Section 80P(2)(a)(i) →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →