RAJHANS NAGARI SAHAKARI PATSANSTHA MARYADIT,MOGALPURA vs. ITO WARD 2, AHMEDNAGAR

On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and without prejudice to any other grounds, the learned CIT(A) has erred in passing an order under section 250 of the Act without adjudicating the matter on merits and without dealing with the specific grounds raised by the appellant, in violation of the mandate of section 250(6) of the Act and therefore, the impugned order, being non-speaking and devoid of proper reasoning, is bad in law and deserves to be quashed

On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and without prejudice to any other grounds, the learned CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts in upholding the disallowance of deduction under section 80P of the Act while processing the return under section 143(1), ignoring that the amendment to section 143(1)(a)(v) permitting such adjustment was introduced by the Finance Act, 2021 with effect from 01-04-2021 and is prospective in nature, accordingly, for A.Y 2018-19, the disallowance is without juri iction and thus, liable to be deleted

On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and without prejudice to a other grounds, Ld. CIT-Appeal and Ld. CPC have erred in confirming/making the addition of Rs 15.02.580/- under section 143(1) which is without juri iction and hence, bad in law and thus, the same may please be deleted and quashed

On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and without prejudice to any other grounds, whether Appellant is eligible for exemption u/s 80P or not, is a debatable issue and requires long drawn process of reasons and arguments and verification of facts and could only be decided in the detailed assessment and not by way of intimation

On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law and without prejudice to any other ground, Ld. CPC Bengaluru has erred in denying the exemption u/s 80P of the Act and thereby further erred in assessing the total income of the Appellant at Rs 15.02.580/- as against the returned income of Rs NIL which is factually and legally incorrect and invalid and hence, the same may be quashed

On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law and without prejudice to any other ground, Ld. CPC Bengaluru has erred in levying interest u/s 234A, 234B and 234C of the Act and hence, the same may please be deleted.

On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law and without prejudice to any other ground. Ld. CPC Bengaluru has erred in levying fee u/s 234F of the Act and hence, the same may please be deleted

The appellant craves leave to add, amend, modify, alter, revise, substitute, or withdraw any or all grounds of the appeal, if deemed necessary at the time of hearing of the appeal, in the interest of justice.”

We have heard both the parties and perused the records. In this case, there was a delay in filing appeal before ld.CIT(A) of one year, ten months. Ld.CIT(A) dismissed the appeal of the assessee on the ground of delay.

We have perused the Affidavit filed by the ld.AR and are convinced that there was sufficient cause for not filing the appeal within time. In these facts and circumstances of the case, we direct ld.CIT(A) to condone the delay and decide the appeal on merits. Accordingly, the order of the ld.CIT(A) is set-aside to ld.CIT(A) for denovo adjudication. Accordingly, grounds of appeal raised by the Assessee are allowed for statistical purpose.

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purpose. Order pronounced in the open Court on 19 September, 2025. VINAY BHAMORE

गधर्ाफ़धइल / Guard File. आदेशधिपसधर / BY ORDER,