GOA UNIVERSITY EMPLOYEES CO OPERATIVE CREDIT SOCIETY LIMITED,PANAJI, GOA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 1 (1), PANAJI, GOA

The grievance of the assessee revolves around the denial of deduction u/s.80P(2)(d) and u/s.80P(2)(a)(i) of the Act.

At the outset, ld. Counsel for the assessee fairly conceded that ld.CIT(A) has dismissed the appeal of the assessee in limine as barred by limitation as the delay of more than 1200

On the other hand, ld. DR opposed the request made by ld. Counsel for the assessee and relied on the order of ld.CIT(A).

We have heard the rival contentions and perused the record placed before us. We note that ld.CIT(A) has dismissed the appeal in limine for delay in filing of appeal. We have gone through the reasons given by the assessee which are extracted by ld.CIT(A) in para 6.1 of the impugned order and after going through the same we find that due to ‘reasonable cause’ assessee could not file the appeal within the stipulated time. The said delay is not intentional and it was mainly on account of dependence of the assessee on the Tax Consultant. Placing reliance on the judgments of Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Collector, Land Acquisition, Anantnag & Anr. Vs. Mst. Katiji & ld.CIT(A) in the set aside proceedings shall provide reasonable opportunity of hearing to the assessee and pass speaking order as contemplated u/s.250(6) of the Act. Assessee is directed to update email and contact 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) shall be free to proceed in accordance with law. Impugned order of ld. CIT(A)/NFAC is set aside and effective grounds of appeal raised by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes.

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

The Pr. CIT concerned. विभ गीय प्रतितनधि, आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण, Panaji 4. ‘SMC’ Bench / DR, ITAT, Panaji ‘SMC’ Bench ग र्ड फ़ इल / Guard File. 5. आिेश नुस र / BY ORDER,