Loading judgment…
Facts
Kalanad Service Co-op. Bank claimed deduction under Section 80P, which was denied by the AO, leading to an addition of Rs. 28,39,995/- under Section 143(3). The CIT(A) dismissed the assessee's appeal *in limine* without condoning a 30-day delay. The assessee subsequently filed an appeal to the ITAT with a further 230-day delay.
Held
The ITAT condoned both the 230-day delay in filing the appeal to the Tribunal and the 30-day delay at the CIT(A) level, accepting the assessee's explanations. The Tribunal found the CIT(A)'s *in limine* dismissal improper and, in the interest of justice, remanded the entire matter back to the CIT(A) for *de novo* disposal after affording the assessee an opportunity of being heard.
Key Issues
Condonation of delay in filing appeals to CIT(A) and ITAT, and the validity of CIT(A)'s *in limine* dismissal without considering the assessee's explanation for delay.
Sections Cited
80P, 143(3)
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, COCHIN BENCH
Before: SHRI INTURI RAMA RAO, AM
O R D E R This appeal filed by the assessee is directed against the order of the National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi [CIT(A)] dated 01.11.2023 for Assessment Year (AY) 2014-15.
Brief facts of the case are that the appellant society is engaged in the business of banking activities and also in trading activities. The return of income for AY 2014-15 was filed on 03.03.2016 declaring total income at Nil after claiming deduction of Rs. 28,39,995/- u/s. 80p of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (the Act). Against the said return of income the Income Tax Officer, Ward-1, Kalanad Service Co-op. Bank Ltd. Kasaragod (hereinafter called "the AO") completed the assessment vide order dated 27.12.2016 passed u/s. 143(3) of the Act at a total income of R. 28,39,995/-. While doing so, the AO made addition of Rs, 28,39,995/- by denying the deduction claimed by the assessee society u/s. 80P of the Act.
Being aggrieved, an appeal was filed before the CIT(A), who vide the impugned order dismissed the appeal relying on the judgement of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Collector Land Acquisition v. Mst. Katij & Ors 167 ITR 471.
Being aggrieved, the appellant is in appeal before the Tribunal in the present appeal.
At the outset I find that there is delay of 230 days in filing the present appeal before the Tribunal. The explanation of the appellant that the delay had occurred as the order passed by the CIT(A) went to the Spam folder of the email account of the appellant. In the absence of any material on record to disbelieve the explanation I am of the considered opinion that it is a fit case for condoning the delay. Accordingly the delay of 230 days is condoned and the appeal is admitted for adjudication.
The ld. CIT(A) dismissed the appeal in limine without condoning the delay of 30 days. The explanation of the appellant was that the delay had occurred because the matter had to be placed before the board for issuing necessary instructions to the Secretary for filing the appeal. The Secretary had to approach the advocate for filing the appeal, who was out of station due to unavoidable work Kalanad Service Co-op. Bank Ltd. commitments. The ld. CIT(A), without giving any finding as to the bona fides of the explanation, had simply dismissed the appeal in limine. Therefore, in the circumstances I am of the considered opinion that in the interest of justice the matter requires to be remanded to the file of the CIT(A). Accordingly the matter is restored to the file of the CIT(A) for de novo disposal in accordance with law, after affording opportunity of being heard to the appellant.
In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee stands allowed for statistical purposes.