SHIROL PANCHAYAT SAMITT KARMCHARI SAHAKARI PATSANSTHA MARYADIT SHIROL ,KOLHAPUR vs. ITO WARD-1, ICHALKARANJI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 2764/PUN/2025Status: DisposedITAT Pune30 July 2026AY 2016-178 pages

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

AI SummaryDismissed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision to dismiss the appeal in limine due to the inordinate delay. The assessee failed to provide a sufficient cause for the delay, demonstrating negligence and lack of due diligence.

What were the facts?

The assessee, a cooperative society, filed its return belatedly and claimed a deduction under Section 80P, which was disallowed by the CPC. The assessee then filed an appeal before the CIT(A) with an inordinate delay of 2659 days.

What were the issues?

Whether the delay in filing the appeal before the CIT(A) was condonable due to the reasons provided by the assessee. Whether the CIT(A) was justified in dismissing the appeal without condoning the delay.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 80P,Section 143(1),Section 139(4),Section 250

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, PUNE BENCHES “B”, PUNE

Before: DR. MANISH BORAD & SHRI PAVAN KUMAR GADALE

For Respondent: Shri Ajitesh Meena
Hearing: 09.06.2026Pronounced: 30.07.2026

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL PUNE BENCHES “B”, PUNE BEFORE DR. MANISH BORAD, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI PAVAN KUMAR GADALE, JUDICIAL MEMBER आयकर अपील सं. / ITA No.2764/PUN/2025 Assessment Year : 2016-17 Shirol Panchayat Samiti Vs. Income Tax Officer, Karmchari Sahakari Ward-1, Ichalkaranji Patsanstha Maryadit, 1 Near Panchayat Samiti, Shirol, Kolhapur – 416103 Maharashtra PAN : AAHAS 3871M Appellant Respondent

Appellant by : None Respondent by : Shri Ajitesh Meena Date of hearing : 09.06.2026 Date of pronouncement : 30.07.2026 आदेश / ORDER PER DR. MANISH BORAD, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER : The captioned appeal at the instance of assessee pertaining to A.Y. 2016-17 is against the order dated 14.11.2025 framed by Addl.JCIT(A)-2, Visakhapatnam passed u/s.250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short ‘the Act’) arising out of Intimation order dated 21.11.2017 passed u/s.143(1) of the Act.

2.

When the case called for, none appeared on behalf of the assessee despite due service of notice of hearing. Even in the past also, none appeared on dates of hearing fixed on 07.01.2026, 20.01.2026, 16.03.2026, 23.04.2026 and 25.05.2026. We therefore proceed to adjudicate the appeal with

the assistance of ld. Departmental Representative and available material on record.

3.

We have heard the ld. Departmental Representative and perused the record placed before us. We note that the appellant is a Cooperative Society engaged in the business of providing credit facilities to its Members. For the year under consideration, the assessee filed return of income belatedly u/s.139(4) of the Act on 22.11.2016 declaring income at Nil after claiming deduction u/s.80P of the Act at 12,05,660/- which was disallowed by the CPC u/s.143(1) of the Act.

4.

Aggrieved assessee filed appeal before ld.CIT(A) but with an inordinate delay of 2659 days. Ld.CIT(A) dismissed the appeal of the assessee in limine as unadmitted, without condoning the delay. Now the assessee is in appeal before this Tribunal contending that 5. Ld. DR vehemently argued supported the order of ld.CIT(A) and submitted that assessee has failed to show ‘sufficient cause’ for condonation of delay. Assessee has also failed to show any Bonafide reasons for such inordinate delay of 2659 days and therefore ld.CIT(A) has rightly dismissed the appeal of the assessee.

6.

On perusal of the impugned order, we find that the assessee has furnished the reason for delay stating that the notices were sent on the email id of one of its staff who left the job and the said person had not shared the credentials of his email. Further, on merits, the assessee is contending that CPC erred in law and on facts in disallowing the deduction u/s.80P

of Rs.12,05,660/- while processing return u/s.143(1) of the Act, which is beyond the scope of adjustments permitted under said section. However, it is eligible to claim deduction u/s.80P

7.

We find the ld.CIT(A) dismissed the appeal without condoning the delay observing as follows :

“2.3 In the present case, the appellant has filed the appeal after an extraordinary delay of nearly 2659 days. The sole explanation advanced is that the earlier staff who was handling the income tax matters had left the job; however, the appellant has failed to demonstrate what prompt or reasonable steps were taken thereafter to monitor its income tax affairs or to engage an alternative professional after the earlier employee ceased to handle the assignment. The appellant's complete inaction for several years clearly reflects gross negligence and lack of due diligence. Once the statutory time limit has expired, the burden lies squarely upon the appellant to establish "sufficient cause for such an inordinate delay, which is conspicuously absent in the present matter. 2.4 The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Basawaraj and Anr. v. Special Land Acquisition Officer (2013) has held that the expression "sufficient cause cannot be liberally construed where negligence, inaction, or lack of bona fides is evident. Courts are bound to apply the law of limitation with its full rigour when a party has failed to act within the prescribed time without a justifiable explanation. In the present case, the appellant has neither furnished any compelling reason nor demonstrated any bona fide effort to pursue the appellate remedy after the exit of the employee. The appellant has not adduced any supporting document giving reasonable cause which prevented the appellant from filing the appeal for 2659 days. The appellant was expected to exercise due diligence and follow up on the status of his income tax proceedings, mere ignorance of the order cannot justify a delay of this magnitude. In view of the above, the

delay in filing the appeal is not condonable, and the appeal is liable to be dismissed in limine, 2.5 From a careful perusal of the several judicial precedents and court rulings it can be deduced that granting of condonation is not automatic and that the appellant can only seek condonation by giving cogent and satisfactory reasons for such delay and establish that there was neither any negligence nor any inaction on its part, in not filing the appeal in time. In the present case, the appellant has contended that one of the staff member of the said society gave his E mail address and mobile number and left the job in the year 2016. It is the duty of the appellant to regularly monitor and access the e-mail id registered with the Income Tax Department. The failure to do so constitutes negligence on the part of the appellant, and therefore, the delay in filing the appeal cannot be condoned on this ground. 2.6 Given the facts of this case I am of the view that Courts and appellate authorities are not a "walk- in- place" where appellant can approach whenever they want. The law of Limitation is enshrined in the legal maxim "Interest Reipublicae Ut Sit FinisLitium (It is for the general welfare that a period be put to litigation). Rules of Limitation are not meant to destroy the rights of the parties, rather the idea is that every legal remedy must be kept alive for a legislatively fixed period of time. Accordingly, the delay was not condoned, and the appeal was dismissed as time- barred. 3. Since the delay in filing of appeal has not been condoned. Consequently, the appeal of the appellant becomes non-est and therefore the same is not admitted. In the result, the appeal is DISMISSED in limine.”

8.

We find that Intimation u/s.143(1) of the Act was issued on 21.11.2017 disallowing the deduction u/s.80P of the Act and the assessee has filed the appeal before ld.CIT(A) electronically on 02.04.2025. There is delay of 2659 days. From the perusal of the reasons furnished in the condonation

of delay, we find that it is clearly mentioned that the staff left the job in the year 2016,which is before passing of Intimation order disallowing the deduction u/s.80P of the Act. Thus, in our opinion, there is no plausible explanation for such a huge delay before ld. CIT(A). Assessee has not submitted any other convincing reason substantiating the plea about inability to file appeal within the prescribed time. The date on which the assessee became aware about the order is not expressly stated in the application for condonation of delay filed before the First Appellate Authority. In this regard, we place reliance on the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of “Assistant Commissioner (CT) LTU, Kakinada Kakinada & Ors. v. M/s Glaxo Smith Kline Consumer Health Care Limited 2020 [36] G.S.T.L. 305.”

9.

We further quote the judgment of Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of “Pathapati Subba Reddy (Died) By L.Rs. & Ors. Vs. The Special Deputy Collector (LA) [in SLP (Civil) No. 31248 of 2018 decided on 08/04/2024]” wherein the Hon’ble Court has laid down some of the broad principles for condonation of delay. The same are given below:

i. Law of limitation is based upon public policy that there should be an end to litigation by forfeiting the right to remedy rather than the right itself.

ii. A right or the remedy that has not been exercised or availed of for a long time must come to an end or cease to exist after a fixed period of time;

iii. In order to advance substantial justice, though liberal approach, justice-oriented approach or cause of substantial justice may be kept in mind but the same cannot be used to defeat the substantial law of limitation.

iv. Courts are empowered to exercise discretion to condone the delay if sufficient cause had been explained, but that exercise of power is discretionary in nature and may not be exercised even if sufficient cause is established for various factors such as, where there is inordinate delay, negligence and want of due diligence;

v. Merely some persons obtained relief in similar matter, it does not mean that others are also entitled to the same benefit if the court is not satisfied with the cause shown for the delay in filing the appeal,

vi. Merits of the case are not required to be considered in condoning the delay:

vii, Delay condonation application has to be decided on the parameters laid down for condoning the delay and condoning the delay for the reason that the conditions have been imposed. tantamount to disregarding the statutory provision.

Two essential elements viz. (i) the existence of 'sufficient cause', and (ii) satisfaction of the competent authority that such sufficient cause was proved. Onus is obviously on the assessee to demonstrate the factual reasons for delay that can establish

the existence of sufficient cause. Assessee has not placed any cogent reasons that it was beyond the control of the assessee. It is a general principle of law that whenever a court is vested with a discretionary power, such a discretion must be exercised not in an arbitrary vague or fanciful manner but on judicial principles.

11.

We would like to further quote another judgment of Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of University of Delhi Vs Union of India & Ors. In Civil Appeal No. 9408 of 2019 vide order dated 17/12/2019, wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court has refused to condone delay by holding that, "The entire explanation as noted above, depicts the casual approach unmindful of the law of limitation despite being aware of the position of law. That apart when there is such a long delay and there is no proper explanation, laches would also come into play while noticing as to the manner in which a party has proceeded before filing an appeal. In the matter of condonation of delay and laches, the well accepted position is also that the accrued right of the opposite party cannot be lightly dealt with. It was, therefore, held that the appeal had been filed beyond the prescribed time limit of section 249(2) of the Act, hence the delay could not be condoned.

12.

In the light of above judicial precents referred hereinabove, we find that there are no merits in the reasons purforth by the assessee in its application seeking condonation of delay. The assessee has failed to demonstrate the existence of “sufficient cause” for not filing the appeal within the stipulated time before the First Appellate Authority. We therefore without dwelling

upon the merits of the case uphold the action of ld.CIT(A) dismissing the appeal by not condoning the delay in filing of appeal.

13.

In the result, appeal of the assesse is dismissed.

Order pronounced on this 30th day of July, 2026. (PAVAN KUMAR GADALE) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER पुणे / Pune; दिन ांक / Dated : 30th July, 2026. Satish

Satish Kumar Madishetty Digitally signed by Satish Kumar Madishetty Date: 2026.07.30 18:30:23 +05'30'

आदेश की प्रतिलिपि अग्रेपिि / Copy of the Order forwarded to : अपील र्थी / The Appellant. 1. प्रत्यर्थी / The Respondent. 2. 3. The Pr. CIT concerned. विभ गीय प्रतितनधि, आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण, “B” बेंच, 4. पुणे / DR, ITAT, “B” Bench, Pune. ग र्ड फ़ इल / Guard File. 5. आिेश नुस र / BY ORDER,

////

More judgments on Section 80P

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

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →