Loading judgment…
Facts
The assessee, a cooperative society, challenged an assessment for A.Y. 2020-21 where additions of Rs. 1,37,27,811 were made, comprising disallowance of Section 80P deduction and unexplained cash credits under Section 68. The Ld. CIT(A) dismissed the assessee's appeal in limine, rejecting it solely on the grounds of a 333-day delay without addressing the merits of the case.
Held
The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal condoned the 333-day delay in filing the appeal before the CIT(A) after considering the principles of natural justice and relying on a Supreme Court judgment. Consequently, the Tribunal remitted the entire matter back to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication on merits, directing the CIT(A) to pass a speaking order after affording the assessee a reasonable opportunity of being heard.
Key Issues
Whether the delay in filing an appeal before the CIT(A) should be condoned, and whether the additions related to Section 80P deduction disallowance and Section 68 unexplained cash credits are sustainable on merits.
Sections Cited
250, 80P, 68, 144, 144B
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Detected automatically from the text. The count shows how many other judgments on BharatTax rely on the same authority.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, B BENCH, PUNE
Before: Dr. MANISH BORAD & SHRI VINAY BHAMORE
Assessee by : Miss Kimya Kudva Revenue by : Shri Ganesh B Budruk- Additional CIT Date of hearing : 28.04.2025 Date of pronouncement : 07.05.2025 आदेश/ORDER
PER DR. MANISH BORAD, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER :
This appeal at the instance of the assessee is directed against the order passed by the Ld. CIT(A) NFAC, Delhi u/s 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 dated 30.12.2024
Assessee has raised following grounds of appeal:-
1. The Learned CIT(A) erred in law and on facts by upholding the addition of Rs. 1.37.27,811/-made by the Learned AO Instead of Rs. NIL, by -Disallowance of the deduction of Rs. 55,87,311/-claimed u/s 80P of the ITA, 1961 -Addition of Rs. 81,40,500/- u/s 68 on account of unexplained cash credits.
2. Learned CIT(A) erred in law and facts in rejecting Appellant's appeal on account of a delay of 333 days in filing an appeal before him. The appellant contends that -Demise of former tax counsel, Mr. Shinde, a month before the conclusion assessment proceedings. -Appellant become aware of demand upon adjustment of refund and further, appointed a new tax counsel. -As such, Delay of 333 days ought to have been condoned.
The learned CIT(A) ought to have appreciated that appellant has been claiming this deduction in past many years and as such, considering the principle of consistency deduction u/s 80P of the ITA, 1961 is allowable.
The appellant contends that interest income derived from its investments held with various Co-operative banks and other financial institutions is eligible for deduction u/s 80P. The learned CIT(A) ought to have appreciated that the appellant is required to keep fixed deposits only to ensure adherence to the statutory requirements.
5. Appellant contends that appellant can transact only with its members, which is as per the byelaws and therefore appellant is eligible to claim deduction u/s 80P(2)(a)(i) of the ITA, 1961 on surplus / interest income earned from fixed deposits with co operative bank.
Appellant contends that, appellant being a co-operative society deals in providing cash credits to its members and all transactions are genuine, the learned AO ough not to have made an addition u/s 68 as unexplained credit amounting to Re 81,40,000 for increase in unsecured loans during the year pertains to the time to tim deposits by the members.
The appellant craves leave to add/alter/clarify/explain/modify/enhance /delete any or all of the grounds of appeal, and to seek any just and fair relief.
3. At the outset Ld. counsel for the assessee submitted that Ld. CIT(A) has not condoned the delay of 333 days in filing of the appeal and has dismissed the appeal in limine being barred by limitation. Prayer made to condone the delay and remit the issue to the merit of Ld. CIT(A). Ld. DR opposed the request of the Ld. counsel for the assessee stating that the delay is huge and properly not explained by the assessee.
4. We have heard rival contentions and perused the record placed before us. The assessee is an association of persons and e-filed return on income for A.Y. 2020-21 on 31.12.2020 and the assessment u/s 144 r.w.s 144B completed on 09.09.2022 after making additions of Rs. 1,37,27,811/- Assessee filed the appeal to the NFAC/CIT(A) on 07.09.2023 and there was a delay of 333 days. Application for condonation of delay along with affidavit duly furnished. However Ld. CIT(A) did not condone the delay. We however considering the fact that the assessee would not have gained by delaying the appeal and therefore in the larger interest of justice and duly considering the judgement of Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Collector Land Acquisition Anant Nag and others Vs. MSD others (1987) 167 ITR 471 (SC) we deem it appropriate to condone the delay in filing of appeal before Ld. CIT(A). Further since Ld. CIT(A) has not dealt with the merits of the case, we remit the issue raised before us on merits to the file of Ld. CIT(A) for afresh adjudication and to pass a speaking order. Needless to mention that Ld. CIT(A) shall provide reasonable opportunity of hearing to the assessee. Assessee is also directed to remain vigilant and not to take unnecessary adjournment unless otherwise required for reasonable cause. Effective grounds of appeal raised by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes.
In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes.
Order pronounced on this 07th day of May, 2025.