THE BALAKRISHNA MULTI PURPOSE CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETY SADALGA,SADALGA vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, NIPPANI

आदेश / ORDER

PER VINAY BHAMORE, JM: This appeal filed by the assessee is directed against the order dated 25.02.2026 passed by Ld. Addl./JCIT(A), Thane [‘Ld. CIT(A)’] for the assessment year 2018-19.

2 ITA No.259/PAN/2026

“1 The learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) erred in law and on facts in dismissing the appeal in limine by refusing to condone the delay of 339 days in filing the appeal, without properly appreciating the facts and circumstances of the case. 2. The learned CIT(A) failed to appreciate that the appellant had sufficient and reasonable cause for the delay and that the delay was neither intentional nor attributable to any negligence, and therefore ought to have been condoned in the interest of substantial justice. 3. The learned CIT(A) erred in dismissing the appeal without adjudicating the grounds on merits, thereby denying the appellant a fair opportunity of being heard and violating the principles of natural justice. 4. The learned CIT(A) failed to appreciate that the right of appeal is a substantive right and should not have been defeated on technical grounds of limitation, especially when the matter involves substantial questions affecting the tax liability of the appellant. 5. Without prejudice to the above, the learned authorities below erred in passing and upholding the rectification order under section 154, which is beyond the scope of the said provision, as the issue involved is debatable and does not constitute a mistake apparent from the record. 6. The learned Assessing Officer erred in passing the rectification order without considering the submissions made by the appellant and without affording any opportunity of being heard, thereby rendering the order bad in law. 7. Without prejudice to the above, the learned Assessing Officer erred in disallowing the deduction claimed under section 80P(2)(a)(i) by invoking the provisions of section 80P(4), without appreciating that the appellant is a cooperative

3 ITA No.259/PAN/2026

society engaged in providing credit facilities to its members and is not a co-operative bank. 8. The learned Assessing Officer further erred in failing to distinguish between members and nominal/associate members and in wrongly concluding that the appellant was carrying on activities akin to a co-operative bank. 9. The learned Assessing Officer erred in relying upon the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Citizen Co-operative Society Ltd. without establishing that the facts of the appellant’s case are comparable to that decision. 10. The appellant craves leave to add, alter, amend or withdraw any of the above grounds at the time of hearing. 11. For these grounds and other grounds that may be urged at the time of hearing, your petitioner prays to allow the appeal.”

4 ITA No.259/PAN/2026

judgement passed by Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Citizen Cooperative Credit Society Ltd. vs. ACIT in Civil Appeal No.10245 of 2017 dated 08.08.2017, the deduction claimed by the assessee u/s 80P(2)(a)(i) of the IT Act is not allowable. Accordingly, the Assessing Officer vide order dated 03.05.2021 completed the assessment proceedings u/s 143(3) r.w.s 144B of the IT Act by determining the income of the assessee at Rs.29,60,950/- as against the income of Rs.Nil returned by the assessee. The above assessed income includes addition of Rs.29,60,950/- being disallowance of deduction u/s 80P(2)(a)(i) of the IT Act. However, in the computation of income the assessed income was shown as Rs.Nil and demand was also shown as Rs.Nil. Subsequently, the Assessing Officer vide order dated 29.04.2022 rectified the original computation of income annexed with the assessment order wherein the income was shown at Rs.Nil and revised the income to Rs.29,60,950/- as

5 ITA No.259/PAN/2026

against Rs.Nil income shown in the original computation of income prepared by the Assessing Officer. 4. Being aggrieved with the above assessment order/rectification order, the assessee preferred an appeal before Ld. CIT(A). Since according to Ld. CIT(A), the appeal was furnished belatedly i.e. with a delay of 339 days, Ld. CIT(A) dismissed the appeal filed by the assessee without condoning the delay. 5. It is the above order against which the assessee is in appeal before this Tribunal. 6. We have heard Ld. Counsels from both the sides and perused the material available on record. In this regard, we find that it is the sole contention of the counsel of the assessee that the matter needs to be restored back to the file of Ld. CIT(A), since the assessee was prevented by sufficient and reasonable cause in not filing the appeal before Ld. CIT(A) in the prescribed time limit, since the order passed u/s 154 of the IT Act was not known

6 ITA No.259/PAN/2026

to the assessee and the same was passed without affording any opportunity of hearing to the assessee as prescribed u/s 154(3) of the IT Act. It was also the contention of the counsel of the assessee that under identical facts in the case of assessee itself for assessment year 2017-18 similar disallowance was made by the Assessing Officer and Ld. CIT(A) vide order dated 04.12.2023 was pleased to delete the identical addition which was made by disallowing deduction u/s 80P(2)(a)(i) of the IT Act. In this regard, copy of the relevant first appellate order passed by Ld. CIT(A) for assessment year 2017-18 is produced before the bench in paper book page no.98 to 115. 7. Considering the totality of the facts of the case and in the interest of justice and without going into merits of the case and with the consent of both the parties, we deem it appropriate to set-aside the order passed by Ld. CIT(A) and restore the matter back to the file of Ld. CIT(A) with a direction to condone the delay and decide the appeal afresh and as per fact and law after

7 ITA No.259/PAN/2026

providing reasonable opportunity of hearing to the assessee. The assessee is also hereby directed to respond to the notices issued by Ld. CIT(A) in this regard and to produce relevant documents, submissions and evidences, if any, in support of its contentions without taking any adjournment under any pretext, otherwise Ld. CIT(A) shall be at liberty to pass appropriate orders as per law. Thus, the grounds of appeal raised by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes. 8. In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced on this 19th day of August, 2026.

Sd/- Sd/- (MANISH BORAD) (VINAY BHAMORE) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER Panaji / Dated : 19th August, 2026. Sujeet/DOC Digitally signed by Sujeet Kumar Sujeet Kumar Sharma Sharma Date: 2026.08.20 09:53:06 +05'30'

8 ITA No.259/PAN/2026

आदेश क� ��त�ल�प अ�े�षत / Copy of the Order forwarded to : अपीलाथ� / The Appellant. 1. ��यथ� / The Respondent. 2. 3. The Addl./JCIT(A), Thane. 4. The Pr. CIT/CIT concerned. 5. DR, ITAT, Panaji. गाड� फ़ाइल / Guard File. 6. आदेशानुसार / BY ORDER, // True Copy // Assistant Registrar/Sr.PS ITAT, Panaji.