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

PDF

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

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.

Held

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.

Key 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.

Sections Cited

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

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Cases cited in this judgment

Detected automatically from the text. The count shows how many other judgments on BharatTax rely on the same authority.

Collector, Land Acquisition v. Mst. Katiji
167 ITR 471 · 1987 · SC
3,926 citing

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 :

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.

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.

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/-

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.