SHI vs. PHURTI GRAMIN BIGARSHETI SAHAKARI PATSANSTHA MARYADIT,NARAYANGAONVS.ITO, INCOME TAX

ITA 893/PUN/2026Status: HeardITAT Pune06 October 2026AY 2015-167 pages
AI SummaryDismissed

What were the facts?

The assessee, Shivsphurti Gramin Bigarsheti Sahakari Patsanstha Maryadit, filed an appeal for Assessment Year 2015-16 against an order passed by the Income Tax Officer, Ward-10(1), Akurdi, Pune. The original return declared Nil income, but an intimation under Section 143(1) by the DDIT/ADIT-CPC enhanced the total income to Rs. 1,22,050/- by disallowing a deduction claimed under Section 80P. The assessee filed an appeal against this intimation, dated 19.06.2017, before the Learned Additional/Joint Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) on 10.02.2023, with a delay of approximately five years. The Ld. Addl./JCIT(A) dismissed the appeal as not maintainable due to the inordinate delay and lack of sufficient cause. The assessee then filed a further appeal before the ITAT against the order of the Ld. Addl./JCIT(A) dated 26.12.2023, facing a delay of 727 days.

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal held that the delay of 727 days in filing the appeal before it was inordinate and warranted a strict approach. Applying the principles laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Esha Bhattacharjee vs. Managing Committee of Raghunathpur Nafar Academy, the Tribunal noted that an inordinate delay requires a strict approach, and the conduct of the petitioner should be analyzed. The reasons provided by the assessee in their affidavit were considered vague and did not establish any sufficient cause for the substantial delay. The Tribunal found that the assessee failed to demonstrate sufficient cause for the delay, and the reasons were not convincing. Consequently, the delay was not condoned, and the appeal filed by the assessee was dismissed as not maintainable. No decision was made on the merits of the case.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the Tribunal should condone the delay of 727 days in filing the appeal against the order of the Ld. Addl./JCIT(A) dated 26.12.2023, considering the reasons provided by the assessee? Assessee's Contentions: The assessee, through an affidavit by its Chairman, argued that the delay was unintentional and occurred due to a bona fide belief that tax matters were being handled as in previous years where relief was granted. They claimed the intimation under Section 143(1) was not received, and their previous consultant believed the order was not appealable. The society operates in a rural area with limited resources, and the delay was due to non-receipt of the physical order and unawareness of specific adjustments. They also relied on the principle that substantial justice should prevail over technical considerations, citing Collector, Land Acquisition vs. Mst. Katiji. Revenue's Contentions: The judgment records that the Revenue was represented by Smt. Deepa Hiray, Addl. CIT, and the case was heard ex-parte qua the assessee. No specific arguments from the Revenue are recorded in the provided text.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 80P,Section 143(1),Section 250,Section 249(3),Section 249(2)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

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

Before: SHRI Dr. DIPAK P. RIPOTE & SHRI VINAY BHAMORE

For Respondent: Smt. Deepa Hiray, Addl. CIT

PER Dr. DIPAK P. RIPOTE, A.M : This is an appeal filed by the assessee against the order of the Learned Additional/Joint Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), Jodhpur [Ld. Addl./JCIT(A)], passed u/s. 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (‘the Act’) for AY 2015-16 on 26.12.2023. 2. Basic Facts :  In this case, hearing was scheduled on 07.05.2026, none appeared on behalf of the assessee, hence, case was adjourned to 24.06.2026.  On 24.06.2026, none appeared on behalf of the assessee, hence, case was adjourned to 10.08.2026.  On 10.08.2026, none appeared on behalf of the assessee, hence, case was adjourned to 05.10.2026.  On 05.10.2026, none appeared on behalf of the asses

The order continues below.

Read the full judgment

A free account opens 10 full judgments a month. Re-reading one you have already opened does not count again.

Create a free accountSign in

See plans and prices

The summary, the parties, the sections and the citations above are open to everyone and always will be. Only the text of the order and the PDF are metered.

More judgments on Section 80P

All 4,983 judgments and leading authorities on Section 80P →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →