BHOJALRAM URBAN CO OP CREDIT SOCIETY LTD.,SURAT vs. ITO, WARD 3(3)(1), SURAT

PDF · subscribers
ITA 1291/SRT/2024Status: DisposedITAT Surat08 August 2025AY 2017-184 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal condoned the delay of 421 days in filing the appeal, finding that the assessee had "sufficient cause" for the delay, citing the Hon'ble Supreme Court's decision in Collector, Land Acquisition Vs Mst. Katiji and others. The Tribunal, in the interest of substantial justice and adopting a justice-oriented approach, decided to give the assessee one more opportunity to represent its case before the Assessing Officer (AO). Consequently, the matter was remanded back to the AO for fresh adjudication after providing the assessee an opportunity of hearing. The assessee was directed to ensure participation in hearings and avoid unnecessary adjournments. The Tribunal explicitly stated that the AO should adjudicate the matter uninfluenced by his earlier order. The appeal was allowed for statistical purposes.

What were the facts?

The assessee, Bhojalram Urban Co-Op. Credit Society Ltd., filed an appeal against the order of the National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi, dated 15.12.2022, for Assessment Year 2017-18. This order arose from an assessment order passed by the Income Tax Officer (ITO) under section 143(3) on 14.11.2019. The assessee's appeal was filed late by 421 days. The delay was attributed to the physical copy of the NFAC order not being received promptly, with the email notification being sent to a counsel's email address whose staff did not check messages regularly. The assessee became aware of the order when inquiring about the appeal status, leading to the immediate filing of the appeal with a condonation request.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) [NFAC] erred in confirming the Assessing Officer's (AO) addition of Rs.15,494/- as interest income from deposits with IST Bank, holding it not allowable under Section 80P of the Income Tax Act, 1961, by passing a corrigendum order when this disallowance was not in the original assessment order. 2. Whether the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) [NFAC] erred in confirming the AO's disallowance of a bad debt reserve of Rs.7,00,000/-, by passing a corrigendum order when this disallowance was not in the original assessment order. Assessee's Contention: The assessee argued that the NFAC erred in confirming the additions made by the AO via corrigendum orders, which were not part of the original assessment. The delay in filing the appeal was due to bona fide reasons, specifically the non-receipt of the physical order and the counsel's staff not checking the designated email regularly. Revenue's Contention: The judgment records no specific arguments from the revenue regarding the merits of the additions or the delay.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 143(3),Section 80P,Section 253(5),Section 254(1)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

िनधा�रती की ओर से /Assessee by Shri Sapnesh R Sheth, CA राज� की ओर से /Revenue by Shri Ajay Uke– Sr-DR सुनवाई की तारीख/Date of hearing 24.07.2025 उद्घोषणा की तारीख/Date of 08.08.2025 pronouncement Order under section 254(1) of Income Tax Act PER DINESH MOHAN SINHA, JUDICIAL MEMBER: 1. This appeal by assessee is directed against the order of National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi [ for short, “NFAC)/Ld. CIT(A)”] dated 15.12.2022 for the assessment year 2017-18, which in turn arises out of an order passed by the Assessing Officer under section 143(3) of Income Tax Act, 1961 (‘the Act’) on 14.11.2019. The assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal:-

“1. On the facts and circumstances of the case as well as law on the subject, the Commissioner of Income Tax(A), NFAC has erred in confirming the action of AO in adding interest income of Rs.15,494/- received from the deposits from investment made by it with IST Bank by observing that the same is not allowable u/s 80P of the I.T. Act, 1961 by passing corrigendum order although said disallowance was not made in the original assessment order.

2.

On the facts and circumstances of the case as well as law on the subject, the Commissioner of Income Tax (A) NFAC has erred in confirming the action (A.Y.17-18) BU Co-O PCS.Ltd of Assessing Officer in disallowing of bad debt reserve of Rs.7,00,000/- bypassing corrigendum order although said disallowance was not made in the original assessment order.

3. It is therefore prayed that the above made by Assessing Officer and confirmed by Commissioner of Income-tax (A0ppeals) may please be deleted. 4. Appellant craves leave to add, alter or delete any ground(s) either before or in the course of hearing of the appeal”

3.

At the outset, that the appeal filed late by 421 days. The Ld. AR of the assessee has filed an application for condonation of delay, supported by affidavit. The crux of the application lot delay is as under: "2. In this regard, it is submitted that the NFAC. Delhi has passed order on 15.12.2022 and but physical copy of the order passed in not received by us & was found later that the order was sent on email shreebhojalram@ barvaliya.in. It is further submitted that above email id is of the counsel who has taken the domain address for getting the communication from income tax department. However, his staff did not check the messages on the domain regularly. We came to know about the above order being passed by NFAC, Delhi when we asked counsel regarding the status of our pending appeal. My counsel immediately checked the income tax portal and came to know that order has already been passed in our case and demand has been generated. He downloaded the order immediately & informed us to file appeal against the same at the earliest. Hence, this appeal is immediately filed before Honourable Tribunal. My counsel advised us to file appeal with request for condonation of delay considering above bona fide facts. 3. We apologize for default on cur part & reque.it your kind & respectful honour to condone the delay in filing of appeal as the same is caused purely due to above bona fide reasons & we do not have any intention in disregarding the provisions of the statute. Therefore, it is kindly requested that, the delay in filing appeal may be condoned. "

4.

We have considered the submission? made by Ld. AR on behalf of assessee and in absence of any contrary or material on record, the assessee is found to have a “sufficient cause” for delay in filing present appeal as narrated above in foregoing para. We find that section 253(5) of the Act empowers the ITAT to admit an appeal after expiry of prescribed time, if there is a "sufficient cause" for not presenting appeal within prescribed time. It is also a settled position by Hon'ble Supreme Court in Collector, Land Acquisition Vs Mst. Katiji and ethers 1987 AIR 1353, 1987 2 SCC 387 (A.Y.17-18) BU Co-O PCS.Ltd that whenever substantial justice and technical considerations are opposed to each other, the cause of substantial justice must be preferred by adopting a justice- oriented approach. Thus, taking into account the provision of section 253(5) and the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court, we take a judicious view and condone delay in this appeal. At the same time, as agreed by both sides and also having regard to the principle of natural justice and fair play, we deem it fit to give one more opportunity to assesses so that the assessee can represent his case before AO for a proper adjudication. Accordingly, we remand this matter back to the file of AO for a fresh adjudication after giving opportunity of hearing to the assessee, uninfluenced by his earlier order in any manner. The assessee is also directed to ensure participation in the hearings as may be fixed by AO and do not seek unnecessary adjournments failing which the AO shall be at liberty to pass appropriate order in accordance with law.

5.

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced in under proviso to Rule 34 of the ITAT Rules, 1963 on 08/08/2025. Sd/- Sd/- (BIJAYANANDA PRUSETH) (DINESH MOHAN SINHA) लेखा सद�/Accountant Member �ाियक सद�/Judicial Member सूरत / Surat Dated: 08/08/2025 Dkp Outsourcing Sr.P.S*

More judgments on Section 80P

All 5,069 judgments and leading authorities on Section 80P →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →