Loading judgment…
Facts
The assessee, a multi-state cooperative society, faced disallowance of deduction under Section 80P(2)(a)(i) for interest income, leading to reassessments under Section 147 for A.Ys. 2015-18 and an original assessment under Section 143(3) for A.Y. 2018-19. Appeals to the CIT(A) were dismissed ex-parte, prompting the assessee to file appeals before the tribunal with a significant delay.
Held
The tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeals, finding it non-wilful and due to circumstances beyond the assessee's control, including improper service of notices for the CIT(A) proceedings. Citing the interest of justice, the tribunal set aside all ex-parte orders of the CIT(A) and remitted the matters back for fresh adjudication on merits, with a direction for the assessee to be diligent.
Key Issues
The key issues were the condonation of delay in filing appeals before the tribunal and the validity of ex-parte orders passed by the CIT(A) due to alleged improper service of notices, which prevented the assessee from presenting its case on the disallowance of Section 80P(2)(a)(i) deduction.
Sections Cited
143(3), 147, 80P(2)(a)(i)
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Detected automatically from the text. The count shows how many other judgments on BharatTax rely on the same authority.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, ‘A’ BENCH, CHENNAI
Before: SHRI S S VISWANETHRA RAVI & SHRI S.R. RAGHUNATHA
आदेश /O R D E R
PER BENCH : These four appeals by the assessee are filed against the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax, Appeal, NFAC, Delhi, for the assessment year 2015-16, 2016-17, 2017-18 vide order dated 12.06.2024 and for the assessment year 2018-19 vide order dated 28.08.2024. Since facts are identical and issues are common, for the sake of convenience, these appeals filed by the assessee are being heard together and disposed of by this consolidated order.
:-2-: ITA. No:1633 to 1636/Chny/2025 2. At the outset, we note that the appeals for A.Ys. 2015-16, 2016-17 and 2017-18 have been filed with a delay of 277 days; the appeal for A.Y.2018-19 has been filed with a delay of 216 days. The assessee had filed an application seeking condonation of delay, duly supported by an affidavit setting forth the reasons for such delay. The assessee had stated that the delay in filing the appeals was neither wilful nor deliberate, but occasioned due to circumstances beyond the control of the assessee. Further, the assessee had stated that the notices were not sent to the Email IDs provided by the assessee in Form 35. The ld.DR, on the other hand, no material was placed on record to effectively controvert the reasons provided by the assessee.
Upon consideration of the rival submissions and a perusal of the material on record, we are satisfied that the assessee has demonstrated sufficient cause for his inability to file the appeals within the prescribed period of limitation. In the circumstances, the delay in filing the aforesaid appeals stands condoned, and the appeals are admitted for adjudication on merits.
The brief facts of the case are that the assessee is a multi state cooperative society engaged in the business of providing microcredit facilities to poor women entrepreneurs in urban slum and rural area. The assessee had filed its original return of income by declaring a taxable income as nil. The AO had subsequently selected the return of income for scrutiny assessment and completed the assessment u/s.143(3) of the Act and accepted the return of income filed for the A.Ys. 2015-16, 2016-17, 2017-18. Later, the cases were reopened u/s.147 of the Act and issued statutory notices to the assessee. On perusal of the records and submissions the AO found that the assessee had received interest on deposits from bank and also the miscellaneous income had been received by the assessee during the A.Y. which are not eligible for deduction u/s.80P(2)(a)(i) of the Act. The AO relied on the following decisions of the Hon’ble courts and denied the deduction claimed by the assessee u/s.80P(2)(a)(i) of the Act:
:-3-: ITA. No:1633 to 1636/Chny/2025 - Totgar’s Cooperative Sales Society Ltd Vs.ITO [2010] 322 ITR 283 - South Eastern Railway Emp. CoOp Credit Society Ltd 390 ITR 524) - Mantola Co-Op. Thrift & Credit society ltd. 50 Taxmann.com 278(delhi)
The AO passed orders u/s.147 of the Act by disallowing the deduction of Interest on investment and deposits along with the Miscellaneous income claimed as detailed below: A.Y. Order Date of the Disallowance u/s. order u/s.80P(2)(a)(i) - Rs. 2015-16 147 29.03.2022 62,77,511/- 2016-17 147 29.03.2022 65,61,682/- 2017-18 147 30.03.2022 71,18,565/-
The assessee had filed its return of income for the A.Y. 2018-19 on 25.09.2019 admitting a total income of Rs.Nil. The AO had taken up the case for scrutiny assessment and issued statutory notices. The assessee filed the details and documents in support of the return of income filed along with the details for deduction claimed u/s.80P(2)(a)(i) of the Act. However, the AO was not convinced with the deduction claimed u/s.80P(2)(a)(i) of the Act in respect of Interest on investment and deposits to the tune of Rs.28,28,453/- and rejected the deductions and passed the order by making an addition of Rs.28,28,453/-by passing an order dated 26.03.2021 for the A.Y. 2018-19 u/s.143(3) of the Act.
Aggrieved by the order of the AO, the assessee preferred separate appeals for all the four A.Ys. before the ld.CIT(A), NFAC, Delhi.
On perusal of the orders of the ld.CIT(A), we note that the assessee had not participated in the appellate proceedings inspite of providing various opportunities by the ld.CIT(A) to the assessee as per 2 of the order. On verification of the affidavit filed by the assessee we find that the notices were not sent to the Email IDs provided by the assessee in Form 35.
:-4-: ITA. No:1633 to 1636/Chny/2025
The ld.DR fairly agreed to remit the matter back to the file of the ld.CIT(A) to adjudicate the issue on merits.
We have gone through the orders of the authorities and the appeal documents filed before us. We find that the ld.CIT(A) has passed the exparte orders for all the four A.Ys. due to non-participation of the assessee. We find that the ld.CIT(A) has given the following opportunities to the assessee to prosecute the appeal filed; A.Y. Date of the No.of Para No. of order notices sent the order 2015-16 12.06.2024 4 2 2016-17 12.06.2024 4 2 2017-18 12.06.2024 4 2 2018-19 28.08.2024 4 3
Since, the assessee had not participated in the appellate proceedings and the ld.CIT(A) has passed the exparte order in the interest of justice, we are of the considered view that the assessee needs to be given one more opportunity to prosecute the appeal on merits. In the present facts and circumstances of the case and to meet the ends of justice, we are deeming it fit to provide one more opportunity to the assessee and hence we set aside all the four orders of the ld.CIT(A) for the A.Ys. 2015-16, 2016-17, 2017-18 and 2018- 19 and remit the matter back to the file to ld.CIT(A) to adjudicate the matter afresh in accordance with law, after providing reasonable opportunity to the assessee. Needless to say, assessee to be diligent and file written submissions and relevant documents if advised so.
:-5-: ITA. No:1633 to 1636/Chny/2025 12. In the result, all the four appeals filed by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes.
Order pronounced in the court on 12th September, 2025 at Chennai.