Loading judgment…
Facts
The assessee, a cooperative society, filed its return of income for AY 2015-16, claiming a deduction under section 80P(2)(c)(i). The return was processed, and a demand was raised. The assessee filed an appeal before the CIT(A) with a significant delay of 1931 days.
Held
The Tribunal held that the assessee failed to show sufficient cause for the exorbitant delay in filing the appeal before the CIT(A). The reasons provided by the assessee were found to be insufficient to condone the delay.
Key Issues
Whether the assessee had sufficient cause for the inordinate delay in filing the appeal before the CIT(A) and whether the CIT(A) erred in dismissing the appeal in limine.
Sections Cited
139(1), 80P(2)(c)(i), 80P(2)(a)(ii)
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.
Before: Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi & Shri Jagadish
Year: 2018-19 Punalveli Weavers Cooperative Vs. The Income Tax Officer, Society, No. 6/9, T. Vinayagar Kovil Ward 3, Street, Punalveli 626 111, Virudhunagar. Virudhunagar District. [PAN:AAAAP3467B] (अपीलाथ�/Appellant) (��थ�/Respondent) अपीलाथ� की ओर से / Appellant by : Ms. N.V. Lakshmi, Advocate ��थ� की ओर से/Respondent by : Shri Vijay Kumar, JCIT सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date of hearing : 18.06.2025 घोषणा की तारीख /Date of Pronouncement : 03.07.2025 आदेश /O R D E R
PER S.S. VISWANETHRA RAVI, JUDICIAL MEMBER:
This appeal filed by the assessee is directed against the order dated 18.02.2025 passed by the Addl/JCIT(A)-2, Guwahati for the assessment year 2015-16.
Brief facts of the case are that the assessee a registered co- operative society engaged in activities classified under the definition of “weavers society” as per section 2(31) of the Tamil Nadu Co-operative Societies Act,1983. The assessee filed return of income on 07.10.2018 i.e., with the extended prescribed time under section 139(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 [“Act” in short] for tax audit cases disclosing total income at ₹. 0, claiming deduction under section 80P(2)(c)(i) of the Act. The said return was processed and raised a demand of ₹.8,35,990/- vide intimation dated 12.07.2019. The assessee preferred an appeal before the ld. CIT(A) on 23.11.2024 with a delay of 1931 days. The ld. CIT(A) did not accept the reasons explained by the assessee for the said delay and dismissed the appeal in limine without adjudicating the issues on merits. The assessee is in appeal before us as aggrieved by the order of the ld. CIT(A).
The ld. AR Ms. N.V. Lakshmi, Advocate submits that the order of the ld. CIT(A) is against the law, the facts and circumstances of the case and the principals of equity and natural justice. She argued that the ld. CIT(A) dismissed the appeal on technicalities without adjudicating the case on merits and argued vehemently that the ld. CIT(A) violated the principles of natural justice. Further, she submits that there was no sufficient opportunity given by the ld. CIT(A). She argued that the ld. CIT(A) ought to have heard the assessee on the reasons for the delay in filing belated appeal. The ld. CIT(A) failed to consider the facts of the case that the assessee inadvertently claimed the deduction under section 80P(2)(c)(i) of the Act instead of 80P(2)(a)(ii) and argued that there was clerical error made by the assessee while filing the income tax return. Further, she submits that the ld. CIT(A) erred in disposing off the appeal without objectively considering the submissions made by the assessee. She prayed to remand the matter to the file of the ld. CIT(A) with a direction to condone the delay and adjudicate the issues on merits.
The ld. DR Shri Vijay Kumar, JCIT submits that the delay of 1931 days is exorbitant and no explanation showing sufficient cause was placed before the ld. CIT(A). The ld. CIT(A) considered every submissions of the assessee and held that the assessee failed to give sufficient cause to condone the said exorbitant delay of 1931 days. The ld. DR drew our attention to para 5.1 of the impugned order and placed strong reliance on the reasons recorded by the ld. CIT(A). He prayed to dismiss the ground raised by the assessee.
Heard both the parties and perused the material available on record. We note that the ld. CIT(A) reproduced the submissions of the assessee explaining the reasons for the delay in para 2 of the impugned order. On perusal of the same, we note that the assessee contended that the delay in filing the appeal is neither deliberate nor due to negligence and it was arises out of genuine clerical error made during the filing of return of income during the relevant assessment order, the assessee inadvertently claimed the deduction under section 80P(2)(c)(i) instead of the correct provision, under section 80P(2)(a)(ii) of the Act. After realizing the oversight, the assessee took all administrative measures to correct the mistake including filing a response to the demand raised by the Assessing Officer. It was contended further that the said procedural formalities coupled with the time required for the internal resolution of the matter, contributed to the delay in filing the appeal and the assessee made every efforts to rectify the mistake and appeal in a timely manner once the oversight was detected. On plain reading of the said explanation, we do not find any sufficient cause shown by the assessee in explaining the delay of 1931 days as rightly pointed by the ld. CIT(A) in para 5.1 of the impugned order. The said explanation only demonstrate that the assessee has taken efforts to rectify the mistake inadvertently crept in the return of income in claiming the deduction under section 80P(2)(c)(ii) instead of under section 80P(2)(a)(ii) of the Act. But, nowhere, it was shown how the rectification of the inadvertent mistake is sufficient cause in filing the appeal before the ld. CIT(A). As held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in several cases that the Courts/Tribunal is to be very liberal in condoning the delay unless satisfied with the explanation in condoning the delay on day-today basis. In the present case, the intimation rejecting the claim and raising demand vide order dated 12.07.2019, but, however, the assessee did not bring on record any details on how the said mistake was rectified affecting in filing of appeal before the ld. CIT(A). Mere making a statement that due to mistake in return of income which affected timely filing of appeal is not a sufficient cause without any explanation on day-today basis.
The Hon’ble high Court of Judicature at Madras, in the case of Royal Stitches P. Ltd. V. DCIT in T.C.A. SR Nos. 32642 and 32644 of 2012 dated 21.09.2023, by referring the Hon’ble Supreme Court judgement in the case of Basawaraj v. Land Acquisition Officer (2013) 14 SCC 81, observed that it is a trite law that where a case has been presented in the Court beyond limitation, the petitioner has to explain the Court as to what was the “sufficient cause” which means an adequate and enough reasons which prevented him to approach the Court within limitation. Further, the Hon’ble Supreme Court, in the case of Pundlik Jalam Patil v. Executive Engineer, Jalgaon Medium Project [(2008) 17 SCC 448], observed that the courts help those, who are vigilant and “do not slumber over their right” and not inclined to condone the delay of 1072 days in filing the appeals.
In the present case, there is exorbitant delay of 1931 days in filing the appeal before the ld. CIT(A) and the assessee has not shown sufficient cause for such exorbitant delay. Therefore, we find the reasons recorded by the ld. CIT(A) in not accepting the explanation offered by the assessee in condoning the delay, is justified. Thus, we completely agree with the reasons recoded by the ld. CIT(A) in para 5.1 of the impugned order. Accordingly, the grounds raised by the assessee are dismissed.
In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed. Order pronounced on 3rd July, 2025 at Chennai.