Loading judgment…
Facts
The assessee, a co-operative society, appealed against an assessment order which disallowed establishment expenditure and Section 80P(2)(d) deduction. The CIT(A) dismissed the assessee's appeal due to a 60-day delay, refusing to condone it. The assessee then filed an appeal before the Tribunal with a 108-day delay.
Held
The Tribunal condoned the 108-day delay in filing the appeal. It observed that the CIT(A) had dismissed the appeal *in limine* without adequate opportunity for the assessee to explain the 60-day delay. Therefore, the matter was remanded back to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication after providing a reasonable opportunity of hearing to the assessee.
Key Issues
Whether the CIT(A) erred in dismissing the appeal *in limine* due to delay without providing a reasonable opportunity to the assessee to explain the reasons for such delay and the condonation of delay in filing the appeal before the Tribunal.
Sections Cited
80P(2)(a)(i), 143(3), 144B, 80P(2)(d), 154
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, COCHIN BENCH
Before: SHRI INTURI RAMA RAO, AM & SHRI PRAKASH CHAND YADAV, JM
O R D E R Per: Inturi Rama Rao, AM This appeal filed by the assessee is directed against the order of the National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi [CIT(A)] dated 15.03.2024 for Assessment Year (AY) 2021-22.
Brief facts of the case are that the appellant is a co-operative society registered under the Kerala State Co-operative Societies Act, 1969 and classified as a primary agricultural co-operative society. It is engaged in the business of providing credit facilities to its members. The return of income for AY 2021-22 was filed on Paipra Service Co-op. Bank Ltd. 14.03.2022 disclosing income of Rs. 59,800/- after claiming deduction u/s. 80P(2)(a)(i) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (the Act) of Rs. 1,13,68,960/-. Against the said return of income, the assessment was completed by the Income Tax Officer, Ward-1, Thodupuzha (hereinafter called "the AO") vide order dated 13.12.2022 passed u/s. 143(3) r.w.s. 144B of the Act at a total income of Rs. 2,32,47,535/-. While doing so, the AO made disallowance of establishment expenditure of Rs. 1,44,22,589/- for the failure of the assessee to substantiate the same. The AO also disallowed the claim for deduction u/s. 80P(2)(d) of the Act in respect of interest income earned from other than co-operative societies.
Being aggrieved, an appeal was filed before the CIT(A), who vide the impugned order refused to condone the delay in filing the appeal before him by 60 days in the absence of application seeking condonation of delay before him.
Being aggrieved, the appellant is in appeal before this Tribunal in the present appeal.
At the outset, there is a delay of 108 days in filing the appeal before this Tribunal. The appellant had filed a petition seeking condonation of delay on the ground that the delay had occurred on account of pursuit of alternative remedy through petition u/s. 154 of the Act.
Paipra Service Co-op. Bank Ltd. 6. Having heard the rival submissions, we are of the considered opinion that it is a fit case to condone the delay and, therefore, we condone the delay and admit the appeal for adjudication.
We find that the CIT(A) had dismissed the appeal in limine on the ground of delay without condoning the delay of 60 days. On a mere reading of the order of the CIT(A), we are unable to discern whether the CIT(A) had given reasonable opportunity to the appellant to explain the reasons for the delay. Therefore, we are of the considered opinion that it is fit case to remand the matter back to the file of the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication in accordance with law after affording reasonable opportunity of hearing to the appellant
In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee stands partly allowed.
Order pronounced in the open court on 23rd June, 2025.
Sd/- Sd/- (PRAKASH CHAND YADAV) (INTURI RAMA RAO) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Cochin, Dated: 23rd June, 2025 n.p.