BHARATMATA NAGARI SAHAKARI PATSANSTHA MARYADIT,PUNE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD - 2, SATARA

PDF · subscribers
ITA 2067/PUN/2025Status: DisposedITAT Pune01 October 2025AY 2020-21Bench: me. Ld. Counsel for the assessee fairly admitted that the appellant did not respond to the notice of hearing given by Ld. CIT(A) nor could file any written submission. She requested to provide the appellant one more opportunity for going before Ld. CIT(A) for necessary adjudication of the issue raised on merits of the case. Ld. Senior Departmental Representative (DR) is also fair enough in not opposing the request made by the Ld. Counsel of the assessee.3 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal remitted all issues back to the file of the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication on merits. The CIT(A) is directed to grant the assessee a proper opportunity of hearing and pass a speaking order under Section 250(6) of the Act. The appeal was allowed for statistical purposes.

What were the facts?

The assessee challenged the CIT(A)'s order denying a deduction of Rs. 45,06,882/- under Section 80P of the Income Tax Act. A 93-day delay in filing the appeal was condoned by the Tribunal due to reasonable cause, including medical issues. The assessee admitted to not responding to the CIT(A)'s hearing notices or filing written submissions during the initial proceedings.

What were the issues?

The key issues were the denial of deduction under Section 80P of the Income Tax Act and the assessee's non-appearance before the CIT(A), leading to a request for remand for fresh adjudication.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 80P,Section 143(3),Section 250,Section 250(6)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Cases cited in this judgment(1)Show list

Detected automatically from the text. Citations are also linked where they appear in the judgment. The count shows how many other judgments on BharatTax rely on the same authority.

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, SMC BENCH, PUNE

Before: Dr. MANISH BORAD

For Respondent: Shri R.Y. Balawade, Addl
Hearing: 01.10.2025

Assessee by : Deepa Khare (virtual) Revenue by : Shri R.Y. Balawade, Addl. CIT Date of hearing : 01.10.2025 Date of : 14.10.2025 pronouncement आदेश/ORDER

PER DR. MANISH BORAD, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER :

1.

This appeal at the instance of assessee is directed against the order of Ld. CIT(A) NFAC, Delhi u/s 250 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 dated 11.03.2025 which is arising out of order passed u/s 143(3) dated 22.09.2022.

2.

Registry has informed that there is a delay of 93 days in filing the appeal. Ld. Counsel for the assessee with the assistance of condonation application alongwith affidavit has successfully demonstrated that the delay is not intentional and the same has arised due to reasonable cause including the medical problems faced by the key person managing the affairs of the assessee trust. After hearing both the sides and considering the facts of the case and also placing reliance on the judgement of Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Collector, Land Acquisition vs. Master Katiji and Others(1987) 167 ITR 471(SC) (Supreme Court) & in the case of Inder Singh Vs State of Madhya Pradesh judgement dated 21.03.2025 (2025) INSC 382), I hereby condone the delay of 93 days and admit the delay for condonation.

3.

Sole grievance of the assessee is that Ld. CIT(A) erred in not granting the benefit of deduction u/s 80P of the Act at Rs. 45,06,882/-

4.

I have heard rival contentions and perused the record placed before me. Ld. Counsel for the assessee fairly admitted that the appellant did not respond to the notice of hearing given by Ld. CIT(A) nor could file any written submission. She requested to provide the appellant one more opportunity for going before Ld. CIT(A) for necessary adjudication of the issue raised on merits of the case. Ld. Senior Departmental Representative (DR) is also fair enough in not opposing the request made by the Ld. Counsel of the assessee.

5.

Under the given facts and circumstances of the case and being fair to both the parties, and in the larger interest of justice, I deem it proper to remit back all the issues raised in the instant appeal to the file of Ld. CIT(A) for necessary adjudication and also pass a speaking order as contemplated u/s 250(6) of the Act. Needless to mention that proper opportunity of hearing shall be granted to the assessee. Assessee is also directed to remain vigilant and not to take adjournment unless otherwise required for reasonable cause. Effective grounds of appeal raised by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes.

6.

In the result appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes.

Order pronounced on this 14th day of October, 2025.

More judgments on Section 80P

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

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →