COOPERATIVE CANE DEVELOPMENT UNION LTD.,MUZAFFARNAGAR vs. ADDL. CIT, GHAZIABAD

PDF · subscribers
ITA 614/DEL/2014Status: DisposedITAT Delhi03 May 2021AY 2005-064 pages
AI SummaryPartly Allowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) should have considered the appeals on their merits after condoning the delay. The matter was restored to the CIT(A) for a decision on merits after giving the assessee a proper opportunity of being heard.

What were the facts?

The assessee, a Cooperative Society, filed appeals before the CIT(A) with a considerable delay. The reason for the delay was attributed to the transfer and postings of officers. The CIT(A) dismissed the appeals without condoning the delay.

What were the issues?

Whether the CIT(A) erred in dismissing the appeal without condoning the delay in filing, and whether the appeal should be decided on merits.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 143(3),Section 80P

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, DELHI ‘B’ BENCH,

Before: N.K. BILLAIYA & BEFORE MS. SUCHITRA KAMBLE,

Hearing: 03.05.2021Pronounced: 03.05.2021

ORDER

PER N.K. BILLAIYA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER , These three appeals are by different branches of the assessee preferred against the order of CIT(A), Muzaffarnagar dated 28.10.2013 pertaining to assessment year 2005-06. In all the captioned appeals, the common grievance is that the CIT(A) erred in dismissing the appeal by not condoning the delay in filing all the appeal.

2.

None appeared on behalf of the assessee. We have heard the learned DR who relied upon the order of the First Appellate Authority.

3.

The appellants are Cooperative Society engaged in the business activity with main objects to increase production of sugarcane and to implement terms framed by the Central and State Governments and to make arrangements for sale and purchase of cane produce grown by member farmers at profitable price to members. Return for the year under consideration was selected for scrutiny assessment and while completing the assessment under section 143(3) of the Act deduction u/s 80P was denied.

4.

When the matter was agitated before the CIT(A), there was a considerable delay in filing of the appeal. The main reason for the delay was stated to be transfer and postings of the officers. This reason did not find any favour with the CIT(A) who was of the firm belief that it is the duty of the Principal Officer to file the appeal on time.

5.

We are of the considered view that the CIT(A) ought to have considered the appeal on merits of the case, keeping in mind that no person is benefited in filing the appeal late. We, therefore, restore the entire issue to the files of the CIT(A). The CIT(A) is directed to decide the appeal on merits of the case by condoning the delay and after giving a reasonable and sufficient opportunity of being heard to the assessee.

6.

In the result, all the appeals are treated as allowed for statistical purposes.

The order is pronounced in the open court on 03/05/2021.

More judgments on Section 80P

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

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →