THE BHAWANI PATNA CENTRAL CO-OPERATIVE BANK LIMITED,MAHAVIRPADA, BHAWANIPATNA vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-2(1), SAMBALPUR
What did the Tribunal hold?
The Tribunal restored the issues to the file of the CIT(A) to redecide the matter after providing the assessee with a reasonable opportunity of being heard. The assessee had not substantiated its claim regarding brought forward losses before the CIT(A).
What were the facts?
The assessee's appeal was dismissed by the CIT(A) for non-compliance with notices. The assessee sought condonation for a delay in filing the appeal due to staff changes. The Tribunal condoned the delay.
What were the issues?
Whether the assessee's claim for brought forward losses is allowable and whether the CIT(A) should have provided further opportunity to the assessee despite non-compliance.
Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL,
Before: MANISH AGARWAL
Bhawanipatna Bhawanipatna Central Co- Vs. DY. . Commissioner Commissioner of of operative operative Bank Bank Ltd., Ltd., Income Income Tax, Tax, Circle-2(1), Mahavirpada, Mahavirpada, Sambalpur Sambalpur Bhawanipatna, Bhawanipatna, Dist: Dist: Kalahandi PAN/GIR No PAN/GIR No.AAAAT 3481 F (Appellant (Appellant) .. ( Respondent Respondent) Assessee by : Shri Pradyumna Kumar Sahoo, Adv Pradyumna Kumar Sahoo, Adv Revenue by : Shri Charan Dass, ld Sr. : Shri Charan Dass, ld Sr. DR Date of Hearing : 11/0 06/2024 Date of Pronouncement : 11/0 /06/2024 O R D E R Per Bench
This is an appeal filed by the assessee against the order of the ld This is an appeal filed by the assessee against the order of the ld This is an appeal filed by the assessee against the order of the ld CIT(A), A), NFAC, NFAC, Delhi Delhi dated dated 4.7.2023 in in Appeal Appeal No. No.CIT(A), Sambalpur/10370/2016 Sambalpur/10370/2016-17 for the assessment year 2018 2018-19.
Shri Pradyumna Kumar Sahoo, Pradyumna Kumar Sahoo, ld AR appeared for d AR appeared for the assessee and filed an adjournment petition, stating that as the Chief Financial Officer, filed an adjournment petition, stating that as the Chief Financial Officer, filed an adjournment petition, stating that as the Chief Financial Officer, who looks after the taxation/case matter has retired in the recent past and who looks after the taxation/case matter has retired in the recent past and who looks after the taxation/case matter has retired in the recent past and P a g e 1 | 3 new incumbent who joined recently is yet to equip with the subject matter and, therefore, requested for adjourning the case. A perusal of the impugned order, we observe that the ld CIT(A) has dismissed the appeal due to non compliance of notice issued to the assessee. Therefore, we reject the adjournment petition and dispose of the appeal. Shri Charan Dass, ld Sr. DR appeared for the revenue.
The appeal is time barred by 109 days. The assessee has filed condonation petition supported by affidavit, stating that the incumbent who looks after the taxation matter of the appellant bank including the CEO joined in the month of May, 2023 and June, 2023 and thereafter take initiative to file appeal before the Tribunal. There was no other intention not to file the appeal within the time. After considering the condonation petition, we find that the explanation given in the petition is a plausible one and, we condone the delay of 109 days in filing the appeal.
We have considered the submissions of ld Sr. D.R. A perusal of the order of the ld CIT(A) clearly shows that the ld CIT(A) has given several opportunities to the assessee but the assessee has not responded to the same. It was in this backdrop that the ld CIT(A) has dismissed the appeal for want of prosecution. In the grounds of appeal, it is stated by the assessee that after allowing the benefit provided to the Co-operative Societies under section 36(1)(viia) still a huge amount remains as closing balance which can be carried forward for adjustment against income for the P a g e 2 | 3 subsequent year. It was the submission that the brought forward loss for an amount of Rs.5,77,56,027/- is allowable to the assessee. Moreover, the assessee has not responded to the notices issued by the ld CIT(A) to substantiate the above claim before him. In view of above, in the interest of justice, the issues are restored to the file of the ld CIT(A) to redecide the issue after allowing reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee.
In the result, appeal of the assessee stands partly allowed for statistical purposes.
Order dictated and pronounced in the open court on 11/06/2024.
Sd/- sd/- (Manish Agarwal) (George Mathan) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER Cuttack; Dated 11/06/2024 B.K.Parida, SPS (OS) Copy of the Order forwarded to : 1. The Appellant : Bhawanipatna Central Co- operative Bank Ltd., Mahavirpada, Bhawanipatna, Dist: Kalahandi 2. The Respondent: Asst. Commissioner of Income Tax, Range-1, Sambalpur 3. The CIT(A)- NFAC, Delhi 4. Pr.CIT, Sambalpur 5. DR, ITAT, 6. Guard file. //True Copy// By order
Sr.Pvt.secretary ITAT, Cuttack
P a g e 3 | 3
More judgments on Section 36(1)(viia)
- M/S Malwa Gramin Bank Now Known As Punjab… vs DCIT, SangrurITA 283/CHANDI/2019[2015-16]Status: Disposed29 Sept 2026AY 2015-16
- M/S the Malwa Gramin Bank, Sangrur vs ACIT, Circle, SangrurITA 1181/CHANDI/2018[2014-15]Status: Disposed29 Sept 2026AY 2014-15
- M/S the Malwa Gramin Bank, Sangrur vs Dy Commissioner of Income Tax, SangrurITA 156/CHANDI/2017[2011-12]Status: Disposed29 Sept 2026AY 2011-12
- Rajasthan Marudhara Gramin Bank, Jodhpur vs DCIT, Circle-1, JaipurITA 1248/JPR/2025[2018-19]Status: Disposed28 Sept 2026AY 2018-19
- State Bank of India, Mumbai vs ACIT-Circle- 2(2)(1), MumbaiITA 3429/MUM/2018[2013-14]Status: Disposed11 Sept 2026AY 2013-14
Recent GST High Court judgments
Search GST case law →- M/S Dc Security Services vs. Commissioner Of Central Goods And Services TaxUttarakhand · 14 Oct 2026
- M/S Shreekanth Enterprises vs. Joint Commissioner AppealsUttarakhand · 14 Oct 2026
- Sharad Ashok Agarwal vs. State Of Maharashtra Through G.P. And OrsBombay · 14 Oct 2026
- Md. Akhtar Ansari, Proprietor Of M/S Indian Associates vs. State Of Jharkhand, Through Commissioner Of State Tax, Commercial Tax Dept.Jharkhand · 14 Oct 2026
- M/S. Amarjothi Granites (INDIA) PVT. LTD., Berhampur, Ganjam vs. The Commissioner, Commercial Tax And GST, Odisha, CuttackOrissa · 14 Oct 2026