Loading judgment…
Facts
The assessee, a cooperative society, filed returns declaring Nil income for AY 2020-21 and 2018-19 after claiming deductions. Assessments were completed at higher figures due to non-compliance. The assessee preferred appeals before the CIT(A) with significant delays, which were dismissed in limine without condoning the delay.
Held
The Tribunal condoned the delays in filing the appeals before the CIT(A), citing principles of substantial justice over technicalities. Since the appeals were decided ex-parte by the CIT(A) due to non-appearance, the matters were remitted back for fresh adjudication.
Key Issues
Whether the delay in filing appeals before the CIT(A) should be condoned to provide substantial justice, and whether the appeals should be remanded for fresh adjudication after being dismissed in limine.
Sections Cited
80P, 143(2), 142(1), 144, 270A, 250
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, PUNE BENCHES “A”, PUNE
Before: DR.MANISH BORAD & SHRI VINAY BHAMORE
आदेश / ORDER
PER DR. MANISH BORAD, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER :
The captioned three appeals pertaining to the Assessment Years 2020-21 & 2018-19 and are directed against the separate orders passed by National Faceless Appeal Centre u/s.250 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (in short ‘the Act’) which inturn are arising out of the respective Assessment orders. are that the assessee is a cooperative society engaged in providing credit facilities to its members. It filed the return of income for the A.Y. 2020-21 declaring Nil income after claiming deduction u/s.80P at Rs.36,85,250/-. The case selected for scrutiny for examination of (a) high interest expenditure and huge advances; (b) deduction from total income under Chapter VIA; and (c) high liabilities as compared to low income/receipts. There was no response to the statutory notices issued to the assessee u/s.143(2)/142(1) of the Act. Against the said return of income, the assessment was completed by the Assessing Officer u/s.144 of the Act making the following additions :
1. High Interest expenditure and huge advances – Rs.45,97,639/- 2. Claim of Deduction u/s.80P – Rs.36,85,250/- 3. High liabilities as compared to low income/receipts – Rs.7,50,431/- Thus, the Assessing Officer assessed the income of the assessee at Rs.90,33,320/-.
3. Aggrieved assessee preferred appeal before the ld.CIT(A) with a delay of 367 days. The ld.CIT(A) dismissed the appeal to 2254/PUN/2024 Jagruti Nagri Sahakari Patsanstha Myt Parli Vaijnath in limine without condoning the delay. Now the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal challenging the said impugned order.
4. Similarly, the facts relating to Nil income after claiming deduction u/s.80P of the Act. The case selected for complete scrutiny followed by issuance of statutory notices of the Act. In the absence of any compliance, ld. AO completed the assessment determining the income of the assessee society at Rs.1,14,24,540/- as against Nil income returned by the assessee. Dissatisfied assessee preferred appeal before the ld.CIT(A) with a delay of 884 days and the ld.CIT(A) dismissed the appeal in limine without condoning the delay. is an appeal relating to A.Y. 2018-19 filed against the levy of penalty u/s.270A of the Act at Rs.79,00,920/-. In the penalty proceedings as well, the assessee approached the ld.CIT(A) with delay of 599 days and the ld.CIT(A) dismissed the appeal in limine without condoning the delay.
When the appeals were called for, none appeared on behalf of the assessee society despite due service of notice of hearing. We therefore proceed to dispose of the appeals with to 2254/PUN/2024 Jagruti Nagri Sahakari Patsanstha Myt Parli Vaijnath the able assistance from the ld. Departmental Representative exparte qua the assessee.
We have heard the ld. Departmental Representative and perused the record placed before us. From the perusal of the impugned orders, we find the assessee is a Cooperative Society which declared Nil income in the returned filed for the A.Yrs. 2020-21 and A.Y. 2018-19 after claiming deduction u/s.80P of the Act. The assessee has neither participated in the proceedings before the AO nor before the ld.CIT(A). The ld.CIT(A) has basically dismissed the appeals in limine by not condoning the delay occurred in the appeals. The reasons attributed by the Secretary of the assessee society are that he is a senior citizen looking after the affairs of the society. He was not able to sign as he was suffering from depression. They are not user-friendly to computers and unable to track the notices issued by the department etc. The delay was not intentional and therefore prayed for condoning the delay. It was also assailed in the grounds of appeal that the ld.CIT(A) has failed to provide any opportunity to the assessee society to substantiate its case and denied the justice.
8. In the instant appeals, the ld.CIT(A) dismissed the appeals in limine by not condoning the delay. In this context, we would like to quote the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Collector Land Acquisition Vs. MST Katiji (1987) 167 ITR 471 SC . In the said Judgment, their Lordships have given certain principles based on which, the issue with regard to the delay can be approached and the said portion of the order of the Judgment cited supra is reproduced hereunder:
Ordinarily, a litigant does not stand to benefit by lodging an appeal late.
Refusing to condone delay can result in a meritorious matter being thrown out at the very threshold and cause of justice being defeated. As against this when delay is condoned, the highest that can happen is that a cause would be decided on merits after hearing the parties.
Every day's delay must be explained does not mean that a pedantic approach should be made. Why not every hour's delay, every second's delay? The doctrine must be applied in a rational, common sense and pragmatic manner.
When substantial justice and technical considerations are pitted against each other, the cause of substantial justice deserves to be preferred, for the other side cannot claim to have vested right in injustice being done because of a non-deliberate delay.
There is no presumption that delay is occasioned deliberately, or on account of culpable negligence, or on account of mala fides. A litigant does not stand to benefit by resorting to delay. In fact, he runs a serious risk.
to 2254/PUN/2024 Jagruti Nagri Sahakari Patsanstha Myt Parli Vaijnath 6. It must be grasped that the judiciary is respected not on account of its power to legalize injustice on technical grounds but because it is capable of removing injustice and is expected to do so.
In light of above, we are of the opinion that delay in the instant three appeals deserve to be condoned. We therefore condone the respective delay before the ld.CIT(A). Since all the three appeals were decided exparte qua the assessee, we are of the view that in the interest of justice the appeals have to be remitted back to the file of ld.CIT(A) for afresh adjudication. Ld. Departmental Representative also has no objection for the same. In view thereof, without dwelling into merits of the case and considering the facts and circumstances, the issues on merit in these appeals are being remitted to the file of ld.CIT(A) for denovo adjudication. Assessee is directed to provide proper email id before the authorities to ensure proper communication. Assessee is also directed to remain vigilant and not to take adjournment unless otherwise required for reasonable cause, failing which the ld.CIT(A) shall be free to proceed in accordance with law. Finding of the ld. CIT(A) are set aside and effective grounds of appeal raised by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes. to 2254/PUN/2024 Jagruti Nagri Sahakari Patsanstha Myt Parli Vaijnath
9. In the result, all the three appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes.
Order pronounced on this 23rd day of January, 2025.