PRAMATHESH SAHAKARI GRIHARACHANA SANSTHA MARYADIT ,PUNE vs. ASSESSING OFFICER, PUNE

PDF · subscribers
ITA 2766/PUN/2026Status: DisposedITAT Pune31 August 2026AY 2019-20203 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal before the CIT(A) due to reasonable cause. The Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s order and restored the issues to the CIT(A) for adjudication on merits.

What were the facts?

The assessee's claim for deduction under Section 80P was denied by the CPC. The appeal before the CIT(A) was dismissed due to a 48-day delay, which the CIT(A) did not condone. The assessee cited technical difficulties and unawareness of the online portal as reasons for the delay.

What were the issues?

Whether the delay in filing the appeal before the CIT(A) was to be condoned. Whether the issues related to Section 80P deduction should be adjudicated on merits.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 80P,Section 154,Section 250

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

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

Before: DR.MANISH BORAD & SHRI VINAY BHAMORE

For Appellant: Shri Deepak Sasar, CA
For Respondent: Shri Sandeep Jumale
Hearing: 04.08.2026Pronounced: 31.08.2026

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL PUNE BENCHES “SMC”, PUNE BEFORE DR.MANISH BORAD, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI VINAY BHAMORE, JUDICIAL MEMBER आयकर अपील सं. / ITA No.2766/PUN/2026 Assessment Year : 2019-20 Pramathesh Sahakari Vs. Income Tax Officer, Griharachana Sanstha Maryadit, Ward-3, Pune Survey No.67, Pramatesh Hsg. Soc Ltd., Next to Mahat Hsg. Soc., Kothrud, Behind Gandhi Bhawan, Pune 411038, Maharashtra PAN : AAAAP5516F Appellant Respondent

Appellant by : Shri Deepak Sasar, CA Respondent by : Shri Sandeep Jumale, ACIT (virtual) Date of hearing : 04.08.2026 Date of pronouncement : 31.08.2026 आदेश / ORDER PER DR. MANISH BORAD, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER : The captioned appeal at the instance of assessee pertaining to A.Y. 2019-20 is directed against the order dated 08.03.2026 of National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi passed u/s.250 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter also called ‘the Act’) arising out of Rectification order 12.12.2022 passed u/s.154 of the Act.

2.

The only grievance of the assessee is against the deduction u/s.80P of the Act at Rs.18,92,041/-.

3.

We have heard the rival submissions and perused the record placed before us. We notice that the claim of the

ITA No.2766/PUN/2026 Pramathesh Sahakari Griharachana Sanstha Maryadit assessee for deduction u/s.80P has been denied by the CPC u/s.154 of the Act which has been subsequently challenged before ld.CIT(A) but there was delay of 48 days which has not been condoned by ld.CIT(A) dismissing the appeal of the assessee in limine.

4.

We have gone through the contents of the Affidavit attached with Form No.35 appearing at para 2.3 of the impugned order and find that office of the assessee society are senior citizens and they were facing technical difficulty due to unawareness of the use of online portal. On due consideration of the said reasons, we are satisfied that due to ‘reasonable cause’ assessee society was prevented from filing the appeal within the stipulated time and delay is neither deliberate nor intentional. We therefore condone the delay in filing of the appeal before ld.CIT(A) placing reliance on the judgments of Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Collector, Land Acquisition, Anantnag & Anr. Vs. Mst. Katiji & Ors. reported in (1987) 2 SCC 107 and in the case of Inder Singh Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh judgment dated 21.03.2025 (2025 INSC 382) and admit the appeal for adjudication.

5.

Assessee has also furnished the paper book running into 352 pages and case law paper book running into 215 pages in support of its grounds of appeal. However, since ld.CIT(A) has not dealt with the issues on merit, we in the larger interest of justice deem it appropriate to restore the issues raised in the instant appeal to the file of ld. CIT(A) for necessary adjudication as contemplated u/s.250(6) of the Act. Needless to mention that ld. CIT(A) in the set aside proceedings shall allow reasonable opportunity to the assessee. Assessee is

ITA No.2766/PUN/2026 Pramathesh Sahakari Griharachana Sanstha Maryadit 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 passed by ld.CIT(A) is set aside and the grounds of appeal raised by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes.

6.

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

Order pronounced on this 31st day of August, 2026.

Sd/- Sd/- (VINAY BHAMORE) (MANISH BORAD) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER पुणे / Pune; दिन ांक / Dated : 31st August, 2026. Satish Satish Kumar Digitally signed by Satish Kumar Madishetty Madishetty Date: 2026.08.31 15:46:42 +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, “SMC” बेंच, 4. पुणे / DR, ITAT, “SMC” 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 →