ENDURANCE SYSTEMS (I) PRAVATE LIMITED KARMACHARI SAHAKARI SAHAKARI PATA SANSTHA MARYADIT,AURANGABAD vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER, NEW DELHI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 2148/PUN/2024Status: DisposedITAT Pune06 February 2025AY 2020-214 pages

In favour of the assessee: the assessee's appeal was allowed. From the AI summary of this appeal.

AI SummaryAllowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal noted that the Assessing Officer had made an addition under Section 80P after the assessee failed to respond to notices, leading to an assessment under Section 144. The primary issue before the CIT(A)/NFAC was the delay of 55 days in filing the appeal, which was dismissed without condonation. The Tribunal, considering the totality of the facts and in the interest of justice, decided to restore the issue to the file of the CIT(A)/NFAC. The Tribunal directed the CIT(A)/NFAC to condone the 55-day delay in filing the appeal and then decide the appeal on its merits, in accordance with the facts and law. The grounds raised by the assessee were allowed for statistical purposes. No other issues were expressly left undecided.

What were the facts?

The assessee, Endurance Systems (I) Pvt. Ltd., filed its return of income for Assessment Year 2020-21 declaring Nil income. The case was selected for scrutiny. Statutory notices were issued. The assessee claimed a deduction of Rs. 37,46,860/- under Section 80P of the Income Tax Act, 1961. As the assessee did not respond to the notices, the Assessing Officer completed the assessment under Section 144, making an addition of Rs. 37,46,860/-. The assessee appealed to the CIT(A)/NFAC, but with a delay of 55 days. The CIT(A)/NFAC dismissed the appeal without condoning the delay. The assessee is now in appeal before the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT).

What were the issues?

1. Whether the ITAT has the power to condone the delay in filing the appeal before the CIT(A)/NFAC, and if so, should it exercise this power in the present case? (Question of law and fact, turning on the powers of the Tribunal and the provisions governing appeals). Assessee's Contention: The assessee, though absent, had filed an appeal before the CIT(A)/NFAC. The judgment does not record any specific arguments made by the assessee before the Tribunal. Revenue's Contention: The revenue, through the Addl. CIT, was represented. The judgment does not record any specific arguments made by the revenue before the Tribunal regarding the delay or the merits of the case.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 143(2),Section 142(1),Section 144,Section 80P

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, PUNE BENCH “SMC”, PUNE

Before: SHRI MANISH BORAD

For Appellant: Shri Sanjay Dhivare, Addl. CIT
For Respondent: Shri Sanjay Dhivare, Addl. CIT

आदेश की प्रतितिति अग्रेतिि/Copy of the Order is forwarded to:

1. 1. अपीलार्थी / The Appellant; प्रत्यर्थी / The Respondent 2.

More judgments on Section 142(1)

All 17,244 judgments and leading authorities on Section 142(1) →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →