KANATALAW SEVA SAHAKARI MANDALI LTD.,RAJKOT (AMRELI) vs. THE ITO WARD - 3 (1) (4) AMRELI, AMRELI

The Ld. A.O. erred in law as well as on facts in charging interest U/s 234C of Rs. 2,848/-. The Ld. CIT(A) has also erred in conforming the same. The same needs cancellation.

The Ld. A.O. erred in law as well as on facts in not allowing deduction of Rs. 1,92,618/- without cogent reason or cogent material brought on records. The Ld. CIT(A) has also erred in conforming the same. The same needs cancellation.

The Ld. A.O. erred in law as well as on facts in not accepting claim of deduction made u/s 80P stating that return is filed late. The Ld. CIT(A) has also erred in conforming the same. The same needs cancellation.

The Ld. A.O. erred in law as well as on facts in not allowing deduction of Rs. 1,92,618/- without giving proper opportunity and adequately considering the matter. The Ld. CIT(A) has also erred in conforming the same. The same needs cancellation.

The Ld. A.O. erred in law as well as on facts in calculating not allowing deduction of Rs. 1,92,618/-, based on irrelevant consideration. The Ld CIT(A) has also erred in confirming the same. The same needs cancellation.

The Ld. A.O. erred in law as well as on facts in not allowing deduction of Rs. 1,92,618/- based on presumption and surmises. The Ld. CIT(A) has also erred in conforming the same. The same needs cancellation.

Taking into consideration legal, statutory, factual and administrative aspects no addition as made ought to have been made. The Ld. CIT(A) has also erred in conforming the same. The same needs cancellation.

The Ld. A.O. erred in law as well as on facts in not giving due deductions while completing assessments. The Ld. CIT(A) has also erred in conforming the same. The same needs to be allowed.

The Ld. A.O. erred in law as well as on facts in not giving due exemption while completing assessments. The Ld. CIT(A) has also erred in conforming the same. The same needs to be allowed. 14. Without prejudice, the assessment made being illegal, void, bad in law and against statutory provisions, needs annulment. The Ld. CIT(A) has also erred in conforming the same. 15. Without prejudice, the change of status and determination of fact liability as made by the Ld. A.O. are also bad in law. The Ld. CIT(A) has also erred in conforming the same. The same deserves annulment. 16. Without prejudice, no reasonable opportunity has been given by the Ld. A.O. while completing assessment. The Ld. CIT(A) has also erred in conforming the same. The same needs annulment. 17. Without prejudice, there being no legal service of the notice of hearing issued and therefore the assessment needs annulment. The Ld. CIT(A) has also erred in conforming the same. 18 Without prejudice, no sufficient and reasonable opportunity has been provided at appellate stages. This is erroneous. 19. The appellant craves leave to add/alter/amend and/or substitute any or all grounds of appeal before the actual hearing takes place.”

Grounds of appeal raised by the assessee in are as follows:

The Ld. A.O. erred in law as well as on facts in calculating net tax liability of Rs. 56,426/-. The Ld. CIT(A) has also erred in conforming the same. The same needs cancellation.

The Ld. A.O. erred in law as well as on facts in charging interest u/s 234A of Rs. 2916/-. The Ld. CIT(A) has also erred in conforming the same. The same needs cancellation.

The Ld. A.O. erred in law as well as on facts in charging interest u/s 234B of Rs. 9484/-. The Ld. CIT(A) has also erred in conforming the same. The same needs cancellation.

The Ld. A.O. erred in law as well as on facts in charging interest u/s 234C of Rs. 3681/-. The Ld. CIT(A) has also erred in conforming the same. The same needs cancellation. 6. The Ld. A.O. erred in law as well as on facts in not allowing deduction of Rs. 2,43,736/- without cogent reason or cogent material brought on records. The Ld. CIT(A) has also erred in conforming the same. The same needs cancellation. 7. The Ld. A.O. erred in law as well as on facts in not accepting claim of deduction made u/s 80P stating that return is filed late. The Ld. CIT(A) has also erred in conforming the same. The same needs cancellation. 8. The Ld. A.O. erred in law as well as on facts in not allowing deduction of Rs. 2,43,736/- without giving proper opportunity and adequately considering the matter. The Ld. CIT(A) has also erred in conforming the same. The same needs cancellation. 9. The Ld. A.O. erred in law as well as on facts in calculating not allowing deduction of Rs. 2,43,736/- based on irrelevant consideration. The Ld CIT(A) has also erred in confirming the same. The same needs cancellation. 10. The Ld. A.O. erred in law as well as on facts in not allowing deduction of Rs. 2,43,736/- based on presumption and surmises. The Ld. CIT(A) has also erred in conforming the same. The same needs cancellation. 11. Taking into consideration legal, statutory, factual and administrative aspects no addition as made ought to have been made. The Ld. CIT(A) has also erred in conforming the same. The same needs cancellation. 12. The Ld. A.O. erred in law as well as on facts in not giving due deductions while completing assessments. The Ld. CIT(A) has also erred in conforming the same. The same needs to be allowed. 13. The Ld. A.O. erred in law as well as on facts in not giving due exemption while completing assessments. The Ld. CIT(A) has also erred in conforming the same. The same needs to be allowed. 14. Without prejudice, the assessment made being illegal, void, bad in law and against statutory provisions, needs annulment. The Ld. CIT(A) has also erred in conforming the same.

Without prejudice, the change of status and determination of fact liability as made by the Ld. A.O. are also bad in law. The Ld. CIT(A) has also erred in conforming the same. The same deserves annulment.

Without prejudice, no reasonable opportunity has been given by the Ld. A.O. while completing assessment. The Ld. CIT(A) has also erred in conforming the same. The same needs annulment. 17. Without prejudice, there being no legal service of the notice of hearing issued and therefore the assessment needs annulment. The Ld. CIT(A) has also erred in conforming the same. 18 Without prejudice, no sufficient and reasonable opportunity has been provided at appellate stages. This is erroneous. 19. The appellant craves leave to add/alter/amend and/or substitute any or all grounds of appeal before the actual hearing takes place.

When this appeal was called out for hearing, none appeared on behalf of the assessee nor any request for adjournment was made by the assessee. The notices of hearing of these two appeals have been sent on the address provided by the assessee in Form No.36. However, I have received written submissions, on merit, from the assessee, which are reproduced below:

On the other hand, Ld. DR for the Revenue submitted that in the assessee’s case, the appeal filed by the assessee in 300 days and the appeal filed by the assessee in is also barred by limitation by 147 days. In these two appeals, the assessee has not filed petition for condonation of delay, despite repeated reminders. Therefore, the Ld. DR for the Revenue submitted that these two appeals of the assessee should be dismissed on account of delay in filing appeals. That is, the delay should not be condoned, as the assessee did not file any petition for condonation of delay in both the cases. The Ld. DR for the Revenue also submitted written submissions before me, which are reproduced below:

Without prejudice to above, brief submissions on merit are as under: a) It is undisputed that ROI of subject AY 2018-19 was not filed by Assesee within due date. b) As per section BOAC of chapter VIA of Income tax act applicable from AY 2018-19, "..any deduction is admissible under any provision of this Chapter under the heading "C.-Deductions in respect of certain incomes", no such deduction shall be allowed to him unless he furnishes a return of his income for such assessment year on or before the due date specified under sub-section [1] of section 139. Hence, in view of the same, Assesee is not eligible for any such deduction Including deduction u/s 80 P as it comes under heading "C.-Deductions in respect of certain incomes", of chapter VIA. c) As mentioned in para 3.6 of appeal order by Addl. CIT/ICIT(A) in the case of KHADAKALA SEVA SAHKARI MANADLI LTD for AY 2018-19 (This very case is also before Hon'ble SMC as ITA 199/RJT/2025 on same date 10.09.2025 and hence already on your kind record. (copy enclosed again) -Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Checkmate Services Pvt Ltd held that .. if deduction or exemption is available on compliance with certain conditions, the conditions are to be strictly complied with....... Taxing statute are to be constructed strictly and that there is no room for equitable consideration. The deductions are to be granted only when the conditions which govern them are strictly complied with. Hence as per strict interpretation of law Assesee is not eligible for any deduction u/s 80 P. d) As mentioned In para 3.13 & 3.14 of appeal order by Addl. CIT/JCIT(A) in the case of KHADAKALA SEVA SAHKARI MANADLI LTD for AY 2018-19 that from the memorandum to finance bill 2008 & 2016 explaining the provisions of section 143(1)(a)(ii), specifies the incorrect claim particularly if such incorrect claim is apparent from any information in return of income and that can be information as such as audit report or some other information as provided by assesse in return of income..... the amended provisions empower adjustments to be made interalia on the basis of remarks included in ITR or incorrect claim apparent from any information in ROI...scope of adjustment u/s 143(1) has been widened and enlarged..... In the present case adjustment has been made on account of incorrect claim i.e. filing of ROI after the due date, which is apparent from information in the ITR as provided by the Assessee.

I have heard Ld. DR for the Revenue and noted that appeal filed by the assessee in 300 days and appeal filed by the assessee in is barred by limitation by 147 days. In case of both the appeals, the assessee has not filed the petition for condonation of delay. Therefore, in the absence of petition for condonation of delay, respective delay should not be condoned in both these appeals.

Therefore, I find that in these two appeals, no justification has been submitted for condonation for delay in filing appeals. During the proceedings before ITAT, various opportunities had been provided, however till date no opportunities has been availed and no justification for delay in filing these appeals have been submitted. In these two cases, the assessee failed to submit the "sufficient cause" for late filing of appeals. The exercise of discretion in condonation of delay in matters of limitation, has to be carried out within the meaning of "Sufficient Cause" as envisaged in Section 5 of Limitation Act. Hence, the general rule of law of limitation is that an extension shall not be granted under Section 5 of Limitation Act, if there is no sufficient cause or cogent ground for the condonation of delay, the onus of proving which lies on the appellant/applicant as clearly laid down in the judicial pronouncements by the Highest Courts of Law.

I am of the view that even if the term "sufficient cause" has to receive liberal construction, it must squarely fall within the concept of reasonable time and proper conduct of the party concerned. The purpose of introducing liberal construction normally is to introduce the concept of "reasonableness" as it is understood in its general connotation.If a party has been thoroughly negligent in implementing its rights and remedies, it will be unfair to condone the delay that too without filing petition for condonation of delay. Hence, delay is not condoned in both these appeals, and accordingly, I dismiss both these appeals on this score.

In the combined result, both the appeals filed by the assessee, are dismissed.