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

This appeal is filed by the Assessee against the order of ld.Commissioner of Income Tax(Appeal)[NFAC] passed under section 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 for A.Y.2018-19, dated 20.03.2025 emanating from Assessment Order u/s.154 of the I.T.Act, dated 26.11.2019. The assessee has raised following grounds of appeal :

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, 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 2 only be decided in the detailed assessment and not by way of intimation u/s 143(1) and thus, the adjustment made by the CPC Bangalore in the impugned intimation u/s 143(1) making addition of Rs 15,02,580/-is without jurisdiction and hence, the said intimation as well as adjustment/ addition made therein may please 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 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.” Findings & Analysis : 2. 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.

Before us, ld.AR filed copy of the Affidavit and a table containing calculation of delay. Ld.AR submitted that after excluding the Covid-19 period from 15.03.2020 to 28.02.2022, the actual delay is only of 80 days. This fact has not been rebutted by ld.DR for the Revenue.

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.