Loading judgment…
Facts
The assessee filed an appeal against an intimation order under Section 143(1), but the Ld. CIT(A) dismissed it without condoning a 230-day delay, which the assessee attributed to non-receipt of the order. The CIT(A) also erred by treating the assessee, a private limited company, as a cooperative credit society and discussing the applicability of Section 80P.
Held
The ITAT condoned the 230-day delay, finding sufficient and bona fide reasons. It noted the factual error by the CIT(A) in misidentifying the assessee's status and incorrectly discussing Section 80P. The ITAT restored the matter to the CIT(A) for a fresh decision on merits after rectifying the factual error and providing the assessee a reasonable opportunity of hearing.
Key Issues
Whether the CIT(A) was justified in dismissing the appeal without condoning the delay; Whether the CIT(A) made a factual error by miscategorizing the assessee and discussing Section 80P; Whether the case should be remanded for a decision on merits.
Sections Cited
143(1), 80P
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “C” BENCH, KOLKATA
Before: Shri Rajesh Kumar, AM& Shri Sonjoy Sarma, JM]
ORDER Per Shri Rajesh Kumar, AM
The appeal filed by the assessee is against the order of Ld. CIT(A), Addl/JCIT(A)-2, Delhi dated 16.04.2024 for AY 2020-21 arising out of intimation order passed u/s. 143(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the “Act”) by DCIT, CPC dated 24.12.2021.
The issue raised in ground no. 1 by the assessee is against the order of Ld. CIT(A) dismissing the appeal without condoning the delay in filing the appeal.
The Ld. Counsel for the assessee, at the outset, submitted that the Ld. CIT(A) has dismissed the appeal of the assessee without condoning the delay in filing the appeal which was of 230 days. The ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted that though the Ld. CIT(A) discussed the merits of the case, however, on page no. 7, the Ld. CIT(A) while reproducing the argument of the assessee on ground no. 1 discussed the issue of deduction u/s. 80P of the Act which is in respect of the cooperative credit society by wrongly treating the assessee as cooperative society whereas the assessee is a private limited company. The Ld. Counsel for the assessee, therefore, prayed that in all fairness the issue may be restored to the file of Indian Chain Pvt. Ltd., AY 2020-21 the Ld. CIT(A) so that the factual mistake committed by the first appellate authority could be taken care of and the issue be decided on merits after taking into account the submissions and contentions of the assessee.
The Ld. DR, on the other hand, left the issue on the decision of the Bench.
After hearing both the parties and perusing the material on record, we find that though the Ld. CIT(A) dismissed the appeal of the assessee without condoning the delay in filing the appeal by observing that there was no sufficient cause for the delay in filing the appeal. We note that the delay in filing the appeal was on account of non-service of hard copy of the order passed u/s. 143(1) of the Act dated 24.12.2021 nor any e-mail was sent and thus, the assessee was totally unaware of the said order. In our opinion, the assessee cannot be denied justice merely on the technical reason that the appeal is barred by limitation when there is a valid and sufficient reason for the same. In our opinion, the delay of 230 days as explained by the assessee before us is for sufficient and bonafide reasons. Accordingly, we condone the delay.
Further, we note that from page 7 onwards the ld. CIT(A) has discussed the issue of deduction u/s. 80P by wrongly treating the said as a cooperative credit society whereas as a matter of fact, the assessee is a private limited company. Therefore, this is a mistake as apparent from the order of the first appellate authority which needs to be looked into. Besides the appeal of the assessee is also required to be decided on merits. Accordingly, we restore the issue to the file of the Ld. CIT(A) with a direction to decide the appeal on merit after affording reasonable opportunity of hearing to the assessee.
In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes.