K809, UDUMALAI PAPPANKULAM PRIMARY AGRL COOP CREDIT SOCIETY,UDUMALPET vs. ITO,WRD-2(4), TIRUPUR

PDF · subscribers
ITA 998/CHNY/2022Status: DisposedITAT Chennai07 March 2023AY 2017-184 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal before the CIT(A) by imposing a cost of Rs. 10,000/-. The matter was then remanded back to the CIT(A) for deciding the issue on merits.

What were the facts?

The assessee's appeal before the ITAT was filed with a delay of 32 days. The assessee also had a delay of 53 days in filing the appeal before the CIT(A), which was attributed to pursuing a writ petition. The CIT(A) had not condoned the delay and therefore not adjudicated the issue on merits.

What were the issues?

Whether the delay in filing the appeal before the CIT(A) should be condoned and the matter adjudicated on merits. The substantive issue relates to the claim of deduction u/s. 80P.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 80P

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, ‘C/SMC’ BENCH: CHENNAI

Before: SHRI MAHAVIR SINGHAND

Hearing: 07.03.2023

आयकर अपील सं./ Year: 2017-18 K.809 Udumalai Pappankulam The Income Tax Officer, Primary Agri. Co-Op. Credit Ward-2(4), Society, Vs. Tirupur. Pappankulam, Madathukulam, Udumalpet – 642 204. [PAN: AABAK-3729-L] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/ Appellant by : Shri S.Sridhar, Advocate (Erode) ""यथ" क" ओर से /Respondent by : Shri S. Chandrasekaran, JCIT सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date of Hearing : 07.03.2023 : 07.03.2023 घोषणा क" तारीख /Date of Pronouncement आदेश / O R D E R This appeal by the assessee is arising out of the order of Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi, [CIT(A)] in Appeal No.CIT(A), Coimbatore- 3/11457/2019-20 dated 25-08-2022. The Assessment was framed by Income Tax Officer, Ward-2(4), Chennai for the relevant A.Y. 2017-18 vide order dated 30.12.2019 u/s. 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter ‘the Act’). :- 2 -: 2. At the outset it is noticed that this appeal is time barred by 32 days. As per Form-36, the date of service or communication of the appellate order is 25.08.2022 and the appeal before the Tribunal is to be filed on or before 23.10.2022, whereas the appeal was filed by the assessee on 25.11.2022. Thereby, there is a delay of 32 days. The assessee has stated reasons that during this period the Secretary of the assessee was ill and due to that the appeal could not be filed.

When this fact was confronted to Ld. Sr. D.R he could not controvert the above fact situation. After going through the reasons stated by the assessee in his affidavit for condonation of delay, the reasons seems to be reasonable and hence, I condone the delay and admit the appeal for adjudication.

3.

It is noticed that even before CIT(A), the assessee filed a delayed appeal and there was delay of 53 days. The CIT(A) has not confronted the aspect of delay before CIT(A). Now, before us the Ld. counsel for the assessee explained that the assessee filed writ petition before the Hon’ble Madras High Court on 13.02.2020 challenging the validity of the assessment order, which was subsequently dismissed by judgment dated 17.02.2020 in Writ Petition No.3771 of 2020 and thereby, the assessee could file the appeal before CIT(A) with a delay of 53 days. According to Ld. counsel when the assessee was availing :- 3 -: alternative remedy, the CIT(A) should have condoned the delay. When these facts were confronted the Ld. Sr. D.R, he stated that the assessee is a habitual defaulter and hence, CIT(A) has rightly not condoned the delay. After going through the facts of the case, I am of the view that before the Tribunal there was a delay of 35 days and there was further delay before CIT(A) of 53 days, that the issue prima facie seems a reasonable in respect of claim of deduction u/s. 80P of the Act in regard to the members of the society, hence substantial justice should not be defeated. Hence, by imposing a cost of Rs. 10,000/-, I condone the delay before the CIT(A). Since, the CIT(A) has not condoned the delay and not adjudicated the issues on merits, I after condoning the delay remand the matter back to the file of CIT(A) for deciding the issue on merits. However, this would be subject to a payment of cost of Rs.10,000/- to the Tamil Nadu State Legal Services Authority at Hon’ble High Court of Madras before appearing CIT(A).

The CIT(A) will ensure that this cost of Rs. 10,000/- is to be paid by the assessee to the Tamil Nadu State Legal Services Authority. In term of the above, the order of CIT(A) is set aside and remand the matter back to the file of CIT(A) for fresh adjudication. :- 4 -: 4. In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes.

Order pronounced in the Open Court on 07th of March, 2023. (महावीर िसंह) (Mahavir Singh) उपा"" / Vice President चे"ई/Chennai, "दनांक/Dated: 07-03-2023 EDN/-

More judgments on Section 80P

All 5,069 judgments and leading authorities on Section 80P →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →