Loading judgment…
Facts
The assessee filed its return of income for AY 2019-20, claiming a deduction under Section 80P. This deduction was denied by the CPC under Section 143(1). The assessee's appeal before the CIT(A) was dismissed due to a delay of 810 days, which the CIT(A) found to be insufficiently explained.
Held
The Tribunal held that the assessee had provided sufficient cause for the delay in filing the appeal, including reliance on incorrect advice from a consultant and technical issues with the income tax portal. The Tribunal directed the CIT(A) to condone the delay and decide the appeal on its merits.
Key Issues
Whether the delay of 810 days in filing the appeal before the CIT(A) was sufficiently explained and should be condoned, and if so, to decide the appeal on its merits.
Sections Cited
143(1), 80P, 139(4), 139(1)
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “SMC” BENCH : BANGALORE
Before: SHRI PRASHANT MAHARISHI
This appeal is filed by Shri Gurumalleshwara Padhavidharara Pathina Sahakara Sangha Niyamitha (the assessee/appellant) for the assessment year 2019-20 against the appellate order passed by the Addl/JCIT(A)- 12, Mumbai [ld. CIT(A)] dated 20.3.2025 wherein the appeal filed by the assessee against the order passed u/s. 143(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 [the Act] by the CPC dated 6.8.2020 was dismissed by not condoning the delay of 810 days.
The assessee is aggrieved with the same and submitted that that the learned CIT – A is not correct in dismissing the appeal without condoning the delay.
Before us also the appeal is filed that the learned assessing officer has made an adjustment under section 143 (1) of the Act by denying the deduction of ₹ 1,569,743/– to the assessee under section 80P of the Act.
The fact shows that assessee is a society registered under the cooperative societies registration Act filing the return of income on 25/2/2020 u/s. 139 (4) of the Act declaring a total income of rupees Nil after claiming deduction under section 80P of the Act of ₹ 1,569,743/–. This return of income was processed by the Central Processing Centre under section 143(1) of the Act on 6/8/2020 determining the total income of the assessee at ₹ 1,569,740.
The assessee aggrieved with the intimation preferred an appeal before the learned CIT-A stating that out of the abundant caution the assessee has mentioned the date of receipt of the order as the date of intimation dated 6/8/2020. The appellant has also furnished the detailed reasons for filing the appeal late by 810 days. In the application for condonation of the delay, the assessee has submitted that the assessee was advised by the consultant that necessary representation application should be made before the learned assessing officer to allow the deduction under section 80P of the Act. The consultant collected all the details and prepared and application before the learned assessing
officer requesting to rectify by granting deduction under section 80P of the Act. It was the belief of the assessee that the intimation is being attended to by the said authorised representative. After that there was a second surge in Covid 19 and the Karnataka State Government imposed complete lockdown from 27 April 2021 to June 2021. In view of this there was no action on the part of the assessee. Further as soon as the enquiry was made about the rectification application, it was stated by the consultant that he is pursuing the matter before the Department. Later on the President of the society approached the present counsel as it has come to know that there is an outstanding demand of ₹ 627,310 reflecting in the appellant’s income tax portal. The present counsel after going through the file and the online portal of the appellant, strongly advised to file an appeal with a request for condonation of delay. Accordingly due to the incorrect professional advice the appellant could not file the present appeal before the learned CIT – A during the time granted which has caused the delay of 810 days. It was further stated that the delay was also due to the continuous technical error on the income tax portal. The screenshot of the error was also submitted before the learned CIT – A along with the grievance raised by the assessee. In view of above it was stated that the delay may be condoned. The assessee further stated that in view of the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court the delay may also be considered sympathetically. However the delay was not condoned by the learned CIT – A as the assessee has not provided adequate justification for the delay of 810 days in filing the appeal excluding the Covid period. Therefore he held that there is no sufficient and reasonable cause to be considered for granting the condonation of the delay, accordingly the appeal of the assessee was dismissed.
On appeal before me, the learned authorised representative reiterated the same submission and stated that the learned CIT – A should have condone the delay. On the merits of the case he relied upon the decision of Cochin bench in for AY 2019-20 wherein on identical facts and circumstances the issue is decided in favour of the assessee and it has been held that while processing the return of income, the adjustment of denial of deduction under section 80P could not have been made. Therefore it was submitted that on merits the issue is covered in favour of the assessee.
The learned DR vehemently supported the orders of the learned CIT-A and stated that when the assessee has failed to disclose sufficient reason for filing the appeal late before the learned CIT – A by 810 days, the appeal of the assessee has correctly been dismissed. He submitted that when the appeal is not admitted by the learned CIT – A, the same could not have been looked into on merits.
We have carefully considered the rival contention and perused the orders of the learned lower authorities. It is the case of the assessee that assessee society has filed its return of income u/s. 139 (4) of the Act and has not filed any return of income u/s. 139 (1) of the Act. In the belated return the assessee has claimed deduction u/s. 80 P of the Act which has been denied by the Central Processing Centre u/s. 143 (1) of the Act. On appeal before the learned CIT – A, it was found that the appeal filed by the assessee is late by 810 days and therefore the delay was not condoned as no sufficient and reasonable cause was shown to the learned CIT – A as per his version. Therefore the appeal of the assessee was dismissed. We find that the assessee has explained the delay of 810 days by stating that it pursued the proceedings before the learned assessing officer/central processing Centre for sometime and later on when the demand order was passed, the President of the society approached the present counsel who advised to file the appeal. Subsequently it was also shown that there was an error on the portal of the income tax department wherein the appeal could not be filed. The portal screenshot was also submitted before the learned CIT – A who did not consider and discuss the whole issue of delay in filing of the appeal. Undoubtedly the delay in filing of the appeal has occurred because of not filing the miscellaneous application/rectification application before the Central Processing Centre by one of the consultant. The assessee was under a bonafide belief that the rectification application is the right course as advised by the consultant. Later on when the demand arose it was found that the appeal should have been filed before the learned CIT – A. When the appeal papers were prepared, there was an error on the portal of the income tax Department which prevented the assessee to file an appeal. In view of the above facts we find that there is a reasonable cause/sufficient cause in not filing an appeal in time which caused the delay of 810 days. We direct the learned CIT – A to condone the delay and decide the appeal
of the assessee on its merit. The assessee is also directed to furnish the requisite information before the learned CIT – A. The learned CIT – A after giving an opportunity of hearing to the assessee to decide the issue on the merits.
Accordingly the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes.
Pronounced in the open court on this 26th day of September, 2025.