SHRI SAI SAMARTH NAGARI SAHAKARI PATSANSTHA LIMITED,AHMEDNAGAR vs. WARD 1, AHMEDNAGAR, AHMEDNAGAR

PDF · subscribers
ITA 809/PUN/2026Status: DisposedITAT Pune30 July 2026AY 2021-225 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal held that the delay in filing the appeal should be condoned as the assessee claimed non-receipt of the intimation order and the delay was due to reasonable cause. Substantial justice should be preferred over technical considerations.

What were the facts?

The assessee, a cooperative society, filed its return claiming a deduction under Section 80P. The return was processed under Section 143(1) disallowing the deduction. The assessee appealed to the CIT(A) but with a significant delay, which was dismissed in limine.

What were the issues?

Whether the CIT(A) was justified in dismissing the appeal without condoning the delay, and if the delay was caused by a sufficient cause.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 80P,Section 143(1),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 Appellant: Shri Sanket Joshi (virtual)
For Respondent: Shri Amit Bobde
Hearing: 18.06.2026Pronounced: 30.07.2026

PER DR. MANISH BORAD, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER : The captioned appeal at the instance of assessee pertaining to A.Y. 2021-22 is against the order dated 31.12.2025 framed by Addl/JCIT(A)-4, Hyderabad passed u/s.250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short ‘the Act) arising out of Intimation order dated 16.11.2022 passed u/s.143(1) of the Act.

2.

Facts of the case in brief are that the assessee is a Cooperative Society and registered under the Maharashtra State Cooperative Societies Act, 1960. It is engaged in the business of providing credit facilities to its Members. For the year under consideration, the assessee filed its return of income on 21.01.2022 declaring total income at Rs.59,250/- after claiming deduction of Rs.2,21,28,985/- u/s.80P(2)(d)

/80P(2)(a)(i) of the Act. Return processed u/s.143(1) of the Act disallowing the said deduction claimed by the assessee. Aggrieved assessee preferred appeal before ld.CIT(A) but with a delay of 391 days. Ld.CIT(A) dismissed the appeal in limine, without condoning the delay. Now the assessee is in appeal before this Tribunal assailing the impugned order.

3.

Before us, it is contended that intimation order dated 16.11.2022 u/s.143(1) was never received on e-mail of the assessee and the staff of the assessee society were from rural area and not conversant with the Income Tax Portal and compliance thereof. Assessee came to know only in the month of December, 2023 upon receipt of letter proposing to adjust the refund claim in ITR for A.Y. 2022-23 against the demand outstanding for A.Y. 2021-22 and the appeal has been filed on 13.01.2024. Therefore, ld.CIT(A) erred in dismissing the appeal without appreciating that the said delay was due to reasonable cause. A prayer is made to remit back the issue to the file of ld.CIT(A) to condone the delay and adjudicate the issues on merit afresh.

4.

On the other hand, ld. DR supported the order of ld.CIT(A).

5.

We have heard the rival submissions and perused the record placed before. The sole grievance of the assessee is that whether ld.CIT(A) was justified in dismissing the appeal in limine, without condoning the delay of 391 days when the assessee has not issued with any prior intimation for the proposed adjustment. Intimation order u/s.143(1) was never served on the email id of the assessee and therefore ‘sufficient cause’ exists in the case of assessee.

6.

Hon’ble Courts in the series of judgements have held that while condoning the delay the expression of ‘sufficient cause’ should be construed for advancing substantial justice to the party concerned. For evaluating ‘sufficiency of cause’ and then, for deciding condonation of delay, following principles laid down by Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Collector, Land Acquisition, Anantnag & Anr. Vs. Mst. Katiji & Ors. reported in (1987) 2 SCC 107 should be kept in mind:

(i) Ordinarily, a litigant does not stand to benefit by lodging an appeal late. (ii) Refusing to condone delay can result in a meritorious matter being thrown out at the very threshold and cause of justice being defeated. As against this when delay is condoned the highest that can happen is that a cause would be decided on merits after hearing the parties. (iii) "Every day's delay must be explained" does not mean that a pedantic approach should be taken. Why not every hour's delay, every second's delay? The doctrine must be applied in a rational common-sense pragmatic manner. (iv) When substantial justice and technical considerations are pitted against each other, cause of substantial justice deserves to be preferred for the other side cannot claim to have vested right in injustice being done because of a nondeliberate delay. (v) There is no presumption that delay is occasioned deliberately, or on account of culpable negligence, or on account of mala fides. A litigant does not stand to benefit by resorting to delay. In fact, he runs a serious risk. (vi) It must be grasped that judiciary is respected not on account of its power to legalize injustice on technical grounds but because it is capable of removing injustice and is expected to do so.

6.1 The above judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court makes it vivid that substantial justice deserves to be preferred rather than deciding the matter on the basis of technical error.

6.2 Hon’ble Gujarat High Court in the case of Vareli textile industry versus CIT reported in 154 Taxman 33 has held as under:

“It is equally well-settled that where a cause is consciously abandoned (as in the present case) the party seeking condonation has to show by cogent evidence sufficient cause in support of its claim of condonation. The onus is greater. One of the propositions of settled legal position is to ensure that a meritorious case is not thrown out on the ground of limitation. Therefore, it is necessary to examine, at least prima facie, whether the assessee has or has not a case on merits.”

6.3 In the above judgment, the Hon’ble Court held that a meritorious case of the assessee should not be thrown away due to negligence or on account of technical lapses.

6.4 We proceed to evaluate whether the delay in the present case needs to be condoned in the given facts and circumstances. The assessee states that intimation order passed u/s. 143(1) was not served on the assessee when the tax demand for A.Y. 2022-23 is proposed to be adjusted against the outstanding demand for A.Y. 2021-22 assessee came to know about the same which is not disputed by the Revenue. Ld. DR also failed to rebut the contention of the assessee about not serving the Intimation u/s.143(1) on the registered email of the assessee.

6.5 Considering the entire factual matrix and in the interest of justice, ld.CIT(A) ought to have condoned the delay. In view thereof, we are inclined to remit back the issue raised in the instant appeal to the file of ld.CIT(A) to condone the delay and adjudicate the issue on merits as contemplated u/s.250(6) of the Act. Needless to mention that ld.CIT(A) in the set aside proceedings shall afford reasonable opportunity to the assessee. Assessee is directed to provide updated email id and contact detail to the department for receiving the notices from ITBA portal. Assessee is also directed to remain vigilant and not to take adjournment unless otherwise required for reasonable cause. Impugned order is set aside and the effective grounds of appeal raised by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes.

7.

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes.

Order pronounced on this 30th day of July, 2026.

Sd/- Sd/- (PAVAN KUMAR GADALE) (MANISH BORAD) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER पुणे / Pune; दिन ांक / Dated : 30th July, 2026. Satish

Satish Kumar Madishetty Digitally signed by Satish Kumar Madishetty Date: 2026.07.30 18:37:34 +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,

// True Copy // Assistant Registrar, आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण, पुणे / ITAT, Pune.

More judgments on Section 80P

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

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →