BHUUDDESHIY SADHAN SAHKARI SAMITI LIMITED,DEHRADUN vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, DEHRADUN

PDF · subscribers
ITA 193/DDN/2026Status: DisposedITAT Dehradun24 June 2026AY 2018-193 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal found that the factual issues were not properly examined at lower levels and the CIT(A) took a narrow view by not condoning the delays. Therefore, the Tribunal set aside the impugned orders and remanded the matters back to the CIT(A).

What were the facts?

The assessee filed appeals before the CIT(A) with significant delays, which were not condoned, leading to their dismissal in limine. The assessee attributed the delays to an employee's failure to act promptly on received orders.

What were the issues?

Whether the CIT(A) erred in dismissing the appeals in limine without condoning the delay, and whether the factual issues warranted a remand for proper adjudication.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 250,Section 80P

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, DELHI BENCH “SMC” NEW DELHI

Before: SHRI ANUBHAV SHARMA & SHRI SANJAY AWASTHI

For Respondent: Shri Mohan Lal Joshi, Sr. DR
Hearing: 23.06.2026

ITA Nos. 192 & 193/DDN/2026 BHUUDDESHIY SADHAN SAHKARI SAMITI LIMITED IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH “SMC” NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI ANUBHAV SHARMA, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI SANJAY AWASTHI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA No.192/DDN/2026 Assessment Year: 2019-20 BHUUDDESHIY SADHAN SAHKARI Vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, SAMITI LIMITED, Ward 26(1), Income Tax Office, Ghari, Ghari Cantt, Opp. ICAI Bhawan, Subhash Road, Dehradun, Uttarakhand 248001. Dehradun, Uttarakhand 248001. PAN No. AALFG2644M Appellant Respondent & ITA No.193/DDN/2026 Assessment Year: 2018-19 BHUUDDESHIY SADHAN SAHKARI Vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, SAMITI LIMITED, Ward 26(1), Income Tax Office, Ghari, Ghari Cantt, Opp. ICAI Bhawan, Subhash Road, Dehradun, Uttarakhand 248001. Dehradun, Uttarakhand 248001. PAN No. AALFG2644M Appellant Respondent Assessee by None Revenue by Shri Mohan Lal Joshi, Sr. DR Date of hearing: 23.06.2026 Pronouncement on 24.06.2026 O R D E R PER BENCH:

1.

This is a batch of two appeals pertaining to the same assessee for AYs 2018-19 & 2019-20 arise from order dated 06.02.2026, passed u/s 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereafter as “the Act”), by Ld. CIT(A), NFAC. Since both these cases are inter-connected, hence, they are being disposed of through a single order.

ITA Nos. 192 & 193/DDN/2026 BHUUDDESHIY SADHAN SAHKARI SAMITI LIMITED 1.1 In ITA No.192/DDN/2026 it is seen that the CIT(A) has not condoned a delay of 40 days in the filing of the said appeal and has dismissed the same in limine. Similarly, in ITA No.193/DDN/2026 the Ld. CIT(A) has again dismissed the appeal in limine by not condoning a delay of 81 days. In both these cases the assessee had stated that the orders were sent on an e-mail of an employee who failed to take prompt necessary action in regard to filing of the appeal.

1.2 On the last date of hearing, none attended on behalf of the assessee but it was decided to proceed ahead with the adjudication with the help of Ld. DR.

2.

Before us the Ld. DR took us through the orders of authorities below and stated that the assessee was careless in complying before the Ld. AO since in response to notices issued by him there was only part compliance or no compliance at all. It was also brought to our notice that the assessee did not file any reply to the draft assessment order issued by the Ld. AO and thereafter the Ld. AO took an adverse view (ITA No.192/DDN/2026). In ITA No.193/DDN/2026 considering the non- compliance or partial compliance, the Ld.AO denied the deduction u/s 80P of the Act. The Ld. DR fairly left it to the Bench to consider remanding this matter back to the file of Ld. CIT(A).

3.

We have considered the submissions of Ld. DR and have gone through the records before us. We find that in this case the factual issues

ITA Nos. 192 & 193/DDN/2026 BHUUDDESHIY SADHAN SAHKARI SAMITI LIMITED have not been properly thrashed out at the two levels below. In fact, it is seen that the Ld. CIT(A) has taken a rather narrow view in not condoning the delays before him in both the appeals and dismissing the same in limine. It is felt that in the interests of substantive justice, we deem it fit to set aside the impugned orders for both the years and remand the same to the file of Ld. CIT(A). We condone the delay in both the appeals before the Ld. CIT(A) and direct adjudication on merits by the Ld. CIT(A), after giving an opportunity of being heard.

4.

In the result, both these appeals are partly allowed for statistical purposes.

Order pronounced in the open court on 24.06.2026

Sd/- Sd/- (ANUBHAV SHARMA) (SANJAY AWASTHI) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Dated: 24.06.2026 *Kavita Arora, Sr. P.S. Copy forwarded to: 1. Appellant 2. Respondent 3. CIT 4. CIT(Appeals) 5. DR: ITAT ASSISTANT REGISTRAR ITAT, NEW DELHI

More judgments on Section 80P

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

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →