VASAVI PATHINA SA SANGHANIYAMITA,CHALLKERE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1 & TPS, CHITRADURGA

Brief facts of the case are that the assessee filed its return of income for the Assessment Year 2016-17 on 23.12.2016 declaring a total income of Rs.Nil, after claiming deduction under section 80P(2)(a)(i) of the Act for

Subsequently, notice under section 143(2) of the Act was issued on 03.07.2017 and served on 06.07.2018. Thereafter, notice under section 142(1) of the Act was also issued calling for information. In response, assessee appeared before the learned AO and furnished the details. The learned AO, however, not being convinced with the reply of the assessee, disallowed the deduction claimed under section 80P(2)(a)(i) of the Act amounting to Rs.26,75,409/-. Further, he also made a disallowance under section 80P(2)(d) of the Act on the interest income earned on the Co- operative Banks and Scheduled Banks amounting to Rs.12,95,257/-. The learned AO also made an addition of Rs.10,40,430/- as income from other receipts.

On being aggrieved by the additions made by the learned AO, assessee carried the matter in appeal before the learned CIT(A). The learned CIT(A) observed that the assessee has filed the appeal with a delay of 7 days without any sufficient cause and therefore rejected the appeal of the assessee.

On being aggrieved by the order of the learned CIT(A), assessee is in appeal before us by raising various grounds. The main contention of the learned AR is that learned CIT(A) has not condoned the delay of 7 days stating that there is no sufficient cause where the petition for condonation of delay was filed before the learned CIT(A) stating various reasons for delay in filing the appeal before the learned CIT(A). He pleaded that the file may be restored back to learned CIT(A) for fresh adjudication by condoning the delay of 7 days.

Per contra, the learned DR relied on the orders of the Revenue authorities.

We heard the rival contentions and perused the material available on record. Admittedly, assessee ought to have filed before the First Appellate Authority against the order passed under section 143(3) of the Act, dated 18.12.2018, received by the assessee on 28.12.2018 and the appeal ought to have been filed on or before 27.01.2019. However, assessee has filed appeal on 04.02.2019. The assessee has stated in his petition for condonation of delay various causes stating that it was not intentional or deliberate. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Collector of Land Acquisition Vs. MST Katiji and Ors held as follow:

In the instant case, the assessee in his petition has clearly stated the cause for delay in obtaining the digital signature certificate and engagement of appropriate counsel. The delay was neither willful nor intentional but due to genuine and circumstances beyond the control of the assessee.

In the light of the facts stated above, considering the peculiar reasons advanced by the assessee we are of the considered view that delay of 7 days in filing appeal before the learned CIT(A) shall be condoned in the cause of substantial justice, the matter is being restored to the file of learned CIT(A) for fresh consideration of the grounds on merits. Accordingly, the grounds of appeal raised by the assessee are statistically allowed.

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