CEAT LIMITED (TYREDIVISION) EMPLOYEES CO OP CREDIT SOCIETY LIMITED,NASHIK vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD - 1(1), NASHIK., NASHIK

At the outset, we note that there is a delay of 106 days in filing these two appeals before this Tribunal as pointed out by the Registry. Assessee has filed affidavit along with application for condonation of delay stating the reasons which led to delay. After hearing both the parties and perusing the reasons putforth by the assessee, we find that due to ‘reasonable cause’ assessee could not file the appeals within the stipulated time. We therefore CEAT Limited (Tyre Division)

At the outset, ld. Counsel for the assessee before proceeding to argue the case of merits submitted that there was delay in filing the appeals before ld.CIT(A) of 102 days and 133 days respectively and ld.CIT(A) has dismissed the appeals in limine, without condoning the delay observing that “the appellant has not been able to demonstrate that sufficient cause existing for non- filing the appeal within due time. Delay of 102 days is unjustified for a person who is vigilant about his affairs. The appellant assessee has neglected/omitted to assert his rights of appeal in a timely manner. Hence the request for condonation is rejected.”. Delay in presenting the appeals is due to bonafide and genuine reasons and therefore a prayer is made to condone the delay and remit back the issues raised in the instant appeals on quantum addition/penalty to the file of ld.CIT(A) for necessary adjudication on merits.

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

We have heard the rival submissions and perused the record placed before us. We note that the assessee is an Association of persons engaged in the business of banking by accepting deposits and providing credit facilities to the Members. Assessee e-filed the return of income for A.Y. 2018-19 declaring Nil income on CEAT Limited (Tyre Division)

2019. Return processed u/s.143(1) of the Act. Subsequently, case selected for Limited Scrutiny for verification of Deduction from Total income under Chapter VIA. Valid statutory notices were served upon the assessee and in response assessee furnished the requisite details. Ld. Assessing Officer on due consideration of the submissions filed by the assessee concluded the assessment making disallowance u/s.80P(2)(a)(i) of the Act at Rs.70,653/- and also initiated penalty proceedings u/s.270A of the Act and eventually levied penalty of Rs.5,25,640/-.

Aggrieved assessee preferred appeals before ld.CIT(A) against the quantum disallowance made by the Assessing Officer u/s.80P(2)(a)(i) of the Act as well as the penalty levied u/s.270A of the Act but with delay of 102 and 133 days respectively and we note that ld.CIT(A) has dismissed both the appeals in limine, without condoning the delay. Resultantly, there was no adjudication on merits of the issues.

There is no dispute that u/s.253(5) of the Act, the Tribunal may admit an appeal filed beyond the period of limitation where it is satisfied that there exists a ‘sufficient cause’ on the part of the assessee for not presenting the appeal within the prescribed time.

The important point is as to whether such a delay deserves condonation. At this stage, we take note of the judgment of the Hon’ble Bombay High Court in Vijay Vishin Meghani Vs. DCIT & Anr (2017) 398 ITR 250 (Bom) wherein the Hon’ble Court held that none should be deprived of an adjudication on merits unless it is found that the litigant deliberately delayed the filing of appeal. In that case, delay of 2984 days crept in due to improper legal Devi (1979) 118 ITR 507 (SC), the Hon’ble juri ictional High Court condoned the delay.

We have carefully examined the reasons for condonation of delay as well as the explanation tendered by the assessee. Upon a comprehensive appraisal of the facts, we find that the delay cannot be attributed either to deliberate inaction or to any lack of bona fides on the part of the assessee. The circumstances explained demonstrate that the default occurred due to reasons beyond the assessee's control and not on account of any negligence, or want of diligence. In our considered view, assessee has satisfactorily established the existence of "sufficient cause" for the delay in preferring the appeal before the First Appellate Authority.

Considering all these facts and the prayer made by ld. Counsel for the assessee, we deem it appropriate to remit back all the issues raised in the instant appeals to the file of ld.CIT(A) for necessary adjudication of the issues. Needless to mention that ld.CIT(A) shall provide reasonable opportunity of hearing in the set aside proceedings and pass speaking orders as contemplated u/s.250(6) of the Act in light of judgment of Hon’ble Bombay High Luthra (HUF) Bombay)/[2017] 297 CTR 614 (Bombay). Assessee is directed to update email and contract detail on the ITBA portal. Assessee is also directed to remain vigilant and not to take adjournment unless otherwise required for reasonable cause, failing which the ld. CIT(A)/NFAC shall be free to proceed in accordance with law. Finding of the CEAT Limited (Tyre Division)

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes.

The Pr. CIT concerned. विभ गीय प्रतितनधि, आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण, “A” बेंच, 4. पुणे / DR, ITAT, “A” Bench, Pune. ग र्ड फ़ इल / Guard File. 5. आिेश नुस र / BY ORDER,