Loading judgment…
Facts
The appellant, a co-operative agricultural credit society, did not file its return of income. The AO initiated reassessment proceedings and determined a total income of Rs. 40,68,717, denying deduction under Section 80P(4) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The assessee appealed to the CIT(A), but the appeal was dismissed in limine due to a 141-day delay in e-filing.
Held
The Tribunal held that the delay in e-filing the appeal before the CIT(A) was a technical breach of procedure, especially considering that e-filing became mandatory recently and extensions were granted. Therefore, the CIT(A) was not justified in refusing to condone the delay.
Key Issues
Whether the CIT(A) was justified in refusing to condone the 141-day delay in filing the appeal before it.
Sections Cited
139(1), 147, 148, 143(3), 80P(2)(a)(i), 80P(4)
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, COCHIN BENCH
Before: SHRI INTURI RAMA RAO, AM & SHRI SONJOY SARMA, JM
O R D E R Per: Inturi Rama Rao, AM These appeals filed by the assessee are directed against different orders of the National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi [CIT(A)] dated 27.06.2024 for Assessment Year (AY) 2008-09 to 2011-12.
Since identical issues and facts are involved in these appeals, they are heard together and disposed of by this common order. to 719/Coch/2024 Aluva Co-op. Agricultural and Rural Development Bank Ltd.
For the sake of convenience and clarity the facts relevant to the appeal bearing for AY 2008-09 are stated herein.
Brief facts of the case are that is a co-operative society registered under the Kerala State Co-operative Societies Act, 1969. It is classified as a primary agricultural credit co-operative society. It is engaged in the business providing credit facilities to its members of agriculture and rural development. The appellant society had not filed return of income u/s. 139(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (the Act). Subsequently, the AO formed opinion that income escaped assessment to tax as the income of the appellant is not eligible for deduction by virtue of section 80P(4) of the Act. Accordingly, issued a notice u/s. 147 of the Act calling upon the appellant to file return of income. Accordingly, issued notice u/s. 148 on 30.03.2015 calling upon the appellant to file return of income. In response to the notice u/s. 148, the appellant filed return of income disclosing Nil income after claiming deduction u/s. 80P of the Act. Against the said return of income, the assessment was completed by the Income Tax Officer, Ward-1, Aluva (hereinafter called "the AO") vide order dated 29.03.2016 passed u/s. 143(3) r.w.s. 147 of the Act at a total income of Rs. 40,68,717/- denying the claim for deduction u/s. 80P(2)(a)(i) by holding that the appellant is a co-operative bank and hit by sub-section 4 of section 80P of the Act. to 719/Coch/2024 Aluva Co-op. Agricultural and Rural Development Bank Ltd.
Being aggrieved, an appeal was filed before the CIT(A), who vide the impugned order dismissed the appeal in limine without condoning the delay of 141 days in filing the appeal.
Being aggrieved, the appellant is in appeal before this Tribunal in the present appeal.
We have heard the rival contentions and perused the material available on record. The short issue that arises for our consideration is whether the CIT(A) was justified in refusing to condone the delay. It is stated before the CIT(A) that the appellant had filed the appeal in physical form within the time, i.e. on 18.04.2016. However, the appellant had filed the appeal through e-filing with a delay of 141 days. E-filing of appeal before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) was made mandatory w.e.f. 01.03.2016. The same was extended by the CBDT vide circular No., 20 dated 22.05.2016 upto September, 2016. In our considered opinion, it is merely a technical breach of procedure. It cannot be said that there is delay in filing the appeal before the CIT(A). Therefore, we remand the matter back to the file of the CIT(A) with a direction to dispose the appeal on merits as there was no delay, in our considered opinion, in filing the appeal before the CIT(A).
Since identical issues and facts are involved in assessee’s other appeals also, our findings in shall apply mutatis mutandis to these appeals also.