Loading judgment…
Facts
The assessee filed an appeal before the CIT(A) against an order passed under Section 154 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The appeal was delayed by 3961 days. The CIT(A) dismissed the appeal on the ground of delay, stating no sufficient cause was provided. The assessee had filed an affidavit to explain the delay.
Held
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) had condoned a similar delay for the A.Y. 2011-12 on identical facts and affidavit. Therefore, the CIT(A) was precluded from taking divergent views. The Tribunal directed the CIT(A) to condone the delay and decide the appeal on merits.
Key Issues
Whether the CIT(A) erred in not condoning a significant delay in filing an appeal when a similar delay was condoned for an identical subsequent assessment year on the same facts.
Sections Cited
250, 154, 143(1), 80P
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, PUNE BENCHES “SMC” :: PUNE
Before: DR.DIPAK P. RIPOTE & SHRI VINAY BHAMORE
आदेश/ ORDER
PER DR. DIPAK P. RIPOTE, AM:
This is an appeal filed by Assessee against the order of ld.Commissioner of Income Tax(Appeal)[[NFAC], passed under section 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 for the A.Y.2010-11 dated 26.11.2024, emanating from order u/s.154 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, dated 14.11.2011. The Assessee has raised following grounds of appeal :
1. The learned CIT(A), NFAC erred in law and on facts in not condoning the delay of 3,961 days in filing the appeal on the analogy that appellant was not prevented by sufficient cause. The learned CIT(A), NFAC erred in reaching the said analogy without considering appellant’s submission dated 04/10/2024, wherein it was justified that there existed sufficient cause in filing the delayed appeal.
2. Appellant contends that learned ADIT, CPC erred in law and on facts in not granting deduction u/s 80P of the ITA, 1961 of Rs.24,66,790/- while processing the return of income u/s 143(1) /154 of the ITA, 1961. The learned ADIT, CPC ought to have appreciated that there is no power u/s 143(1) of the ITA, 1961 to withdraw claim of deduction u/s 80P of the ITA, 1961 as appellant has fulfilled all the conditions for claiming deduction.
Appellant craves leave to add / alter / modify / amend / delete all / any of the Grounds of Appeal.”
Submission of Ld.AR : 2. Ld.AR for the Assessee filed a paper book.Ld.AR submitted that Ld.CIT(A) has not condoned the delay in filling appeal of 3961 days. Ld.AR invited our attention to the Affidavit filed by the Assessee to explain the circumstances for the delay.Ld.AR submitted that there has been identical delay in filling appeal for A.Y.2011-12 in Assessee’s Own case and ld.CIT(A) on identical facts condoned the delay of 12 years 3 months and decided the appeal on merits.
2.1 Ld.AR further submitted that the ld.CIT(A) is precluded from taking two divergent views on same facts in assessee’s own case. Hence LdAR submitted that the CIT(A) may be directed to condone the delay and decide the appeal on merits.
2.2 On merits, Ld.AR submitted that Assessee is eligible for deduction u/s.80P of the Act.
Submission of Ld.DR : 3. Ld.DR for the Revenue relied on the order of the Ld.CIT(A).
Findings & Analysis : 4. We have heard both the parties and perused the records. In this case, Assessee has filed appeal before the ld.CIT(A) against the order u/s.154 dated 14/11/2011. The appeal was delayed by 3961 days. Assessee filed an Affidavit before the Ld.CIT(A) which has been reproduced by Ld.CIT(A) in the order. Ld.CIT(A) dismissed the appeal on the ground of delay stating that there was no sufficient cause for such huge delay.
4.1 However, we have noted that Ld.CIT(A) in assessee’s own case for A.Y.2011-12 vide his order dated 07/03/2025 has condoned the delay of more than 12 years on the basis of identical affidavit.
4.2 Thus, the Ld.CIT(A) for A.Y.2010-11 on same facts held that there was no sufficient cause for delay whereas, ld.CIT(A) for A.Y.2011-12 on same facts accepts that there was sufficient cause for delay and condoned the delay. The Ld.CIT(A) for A.Y.2011-12 has held that assessee is eligible for deduction u/s.80P of the Act. For A.Y.2011-12 also, the ADIT(CPC) u/s.143(1) had disallowed assessee’s claim of deduction u/s.80P of the Act.
4.3 We agree with the Ld.AR that Ld.CIT(A) is precluded from taking two divergent views on same facts in assessee’s own case for two years.
4.4 In these facts and circumstances, we are of the opinion that if ld.CIT(A) had held that there was sufficient cause for delay in A.Y.2011-12, then on identical facts ld.CIT(A) has to agree that there was sufficient cause for delay. We have noted that the Affidavit is almost same except the dates, for both A.Y.2010-11 and A.Y.2011-12.
In the affidavit the Secretary of the Assessee Society has stated that the Order u/s.143(1) of CPC was not available on portal, hence they kept on pursuing the rectification. This fact that the Order u/s.143(1) was not available on portal has not been disputed by the Assessing Officer(AO) or Ld.DR for the Revenue.
In these facts and circumstances of the case, we direct the Ld.CIT(A) to condone the delay and decide the appeal of the assessee on merits of the case. Accordingly, we set-aside the appeal of the ld.CIT(A) to ld.CIT(A) for denovo adjudication. The Ld.CIT(A) shall provide opportunity of hearing to the assessee and Assessee shall file all details before the ld.CIT(A). 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 30 July, 2025.