Loading judgment…
Facts
The appellant, a co-operative society engaged in banking, claimed a deduction under Section 80P of the Income Tax Act for AY 2015-16. The Assessing Officer disallowed this claim under Section 143(3) as the appellant failed to prove it was a primary agricultural co-operative society, and the CIT(A) confirmed this action.
Held
The Tribunal dismissed the appeal due to a delay of 545 days in filing it. The petition for condonation of delay was rejected, as the reason provided (outsourcing work) was unsubstantiated with evidence, and the Tribunal noted that a litigant who sleeps over their rights should not be granted extraordinary relief.
Key Issues
Whether the assessee, a co-operative society, is eligible for deduction under Section 80P of the Income Tax Act, and whether a delay of 545 days in filing the appeal should be condoned based on the reason of outsourcing work.
Sections Cited
80P, 143(3)
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 30.05.2023 for Assessment Year (AY) 2015-16.
Brief facts of the case are that the appellant is a co-operative society registered under the Kerala State Co-operative Societies Act, 1969. It is engaged in the business of banking. The return of income for AY 2015-16 was filed on 12.03.2016 declaring income of Rs. 94,93,792/- and the same was claimed as deduction u/s. 80P of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (the Act). Against the said return of income, Chathamangalam Service Co-op. Bank Ltd. the assessment was completed by the ACIT, Circle 2, Kozhikode (hereinafter called "the AO") vide order dated 03.08.2017 passed u/s. 143(3) of the Act by disallowing the claim for deduction u/s. 80P of the Act on the ground that no evidence was shown that the appellant is a primary agricultural co-operative society.
Being aggrieved, an appeal was filed before the CIT(A), who vide the impugned order confirmed the action of the AO.
Being aggrieved, the appellant is in appeal before this Tribunal in the present appeal.
At the outset, there is a delay of 545 days in filing the present appeal. The appellant had filed a petition seeking condonation of delay. The only reason given by the appellant is that the work was outsourced to an outside agency. No details, such as the name of the agency, evidence to prove that the work was given to such agency, etc. were not furnished. The appellant society simply attempts to shift the burden to the shoulders of the so called outsourcing agency. Keeping in view the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Mrinmoy Maity v. Chhanda Koley [2024] SCC OnLine SC 551 wherein the Hon’ble Supreme Court observed that an litigant who approach the court belatedly or in other words sleeps over his rights for a considerable period of time, wakes up from his deep slumber ought not to be granted the extraordinary relief as delay is defined as guilty.
Order pronounced in the open court on 23rd June, 2025.