Loading judgment…
Facts
The assessee filed appeals against orders passed by the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) related to assessment years 2018-19 and 2019-20. These appeals arose from intimation orders passed by the CPC/Assessing Officer. The assessee's appeals were filed significantly beyond the prescribed limitation period without any petition for condonation of delay.
Held
The Tribunal held that the appeals were barred by limitation as the assessee failed to file petitions for condonation of delay and did not provide any sufficient cause for the delay. The Tribunal noted that the assessee has a history of filing returns and appeals late. Therefore, the delay was not condoned.
Key Issues
Whether the appeals filed by the assessee are admissible on merits, or should be dismissed on the grounds of delay in filing, without condonation.
Sections Cited
250, 143(1), 80P, 234A, 234B, 234C, 139, 80AC
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “SMC”
Before: DR. ARJUN LAL SAINI
आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण,राजकोट �ायपीठ, राजकोट। IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, “SMC” RAJKOT BENCH, RAJKOT BEFORE DR. ARJUN LAL SAINI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER आयकर अपील सं./ & 201/RJT/2025 �नधा�रण वष�/Assessment Years :2018-19 & 2019-20 Kanatalaw Seva Sahkari Mandli Income Tax Officer Limited Ward 3(1)(4), Amreli बनाम/ Kanatalaw, Savarkundla, Vs Amreli - 364515 �थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./PAN/GIR No.: AAKFK8797L (अपीलाथ�/Appellant) (��यथ�/Respondent) �नधा�रती क� ओर से/Assessee by : Written Submission राज�व क� ओर से/Revenue by : Shri Dheeraj Kumr Gupta, Ld. Sr-DR सुनवाई क� तार�ख /Date of Hearing : 10/09/2025 घोषणा क� तार�ख /Date of Pronouncement : 06/11/2025 आदेश/Order Per, Dr. Arjun Lal Saini, A.M
Both captioned appeals filed by assessee, pertaining to Assessment Years 2018-19 & 2019-20, are directed against the separate orders passed under section 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act”) by the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals), dated 15.03.2024 & 13.06.2024, which in turn arise out of intimation orders passed by CPC, Bengaluru / Assessing Officer u/s 143(1) of the Act, on 25.06.2019 & 01.05.2020; respectively.
& 201/Rjt/2025 Kanatalaw Seva Sahkari Mandli Ltd. vs. ITO “1. The Ld. A.O. erred in law as well as on facts in not allowing deduction of Rs. 1,92,618/. The Ld. CIT(A) has also erred in conforming the same. The same needs cancellation.
2. 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.
3. The Ld. A.O. erred in law as well as on facts in charging interest U/s 234A of Rs. 3,948/-. The Ld. CIT(A) has also erred in conforming the same. The same needs cancellation.
4. The Ld. A.O. erred in law as well as on facts in charging interest U/s 234B of Rs. 8,460/-. The Ld. CIT(A) has also erred in conforming the same. The same needs cancellation.
5. 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.
6. 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.
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. 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.
9. 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.
& 201/Rjt/2025 Kanatalaw Seva Sahkari Mandli Ltd. vs. ITO
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.
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:
“1. The Ld. A.O. erred in law as well as on facts in not allowing deduction of Rs. 2,43,736/. The Ld. CIT(A) has also erred in conforming the same. The same needs cancellation.
2. 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.
3. 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.
& 201/Rjt/2025 Kanatalaw Seva Sahkari Mandli Ltd. vs. ITO
4. 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.
5. 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.
& 201/Rjt/2025 Kanatalaw Seva Sahkari Mandli Ltd. vs. ITO
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.
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:
“The appeal contain in important lingual issue when return is filled late but claiming deduction U/s. 80 P is allowable though deduction is claim rightly but not granted U/s. 80P only for the reason that return is not filled in on time. Disallowance is made by the ld CPC though cpc is not authorized to make such disallowance U/s. 80P. The matter has been considered by the Hon ITAT Rajkot in the case of lunidhar seva sahkari mandali ltd, appeal no. ITA 202 rjt of 2022 vide order dated 22 Feb 2023 (Copy enclosed). Hold in that even though return is not filled in time, deduction U/s.80P can not be disallowed and also that the ld CPC was not empowered to disallow deduction claimed U/s. 80 P only for the reason that return for A.Y. 2018-19 is not filed in time. The assesse very humbly rely on the earnestly pray that the ordered passed by the ld AO cpc may kindly be canceled and direction may kindly be issued to grant deduction U/s. 80 P has claimed. The assessee is a very old co-operative society providing the prayed to the most poor person and because of disallowance number of very poor person have been effected for no fault of them and this being be new provisions came into effect very recently has looked sight since the society is situated in very small village and the concern person having no knowledge even of English language has deprived them from their prayed. The matter may kindly be accepted so that very very poor person and there family members including wife and small children and may get there prayed. With High Regard.
& 201/Rjt/2025 Kanatalaw Seva Sahkari Mandli Ltd. vs. ITO
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:
“In this case, due date of filing ITR was 31.08.2018. However, Assesee filed ROI on 28.03.2019 long after the due date. Hence, Assesee was not eligible for deduction claimed u/s 80P. CPC issued notice to Assesee on 10.05.2019 for proposed adjustment u/s 143(1)(a) & allowed time to asssesee to response in 30 days. (copy of notice already provided to Hon'ble bench by email on 09.09.2025 & enclosed again herewith). CPC passed order u/s 143(1) on 25.06.2019 by making adjustments disallowing deductions claimed u/s 80P as ROI was not filed within due date.Asssesee filed appeal against this order with delay of 172 days which was condoned by ADDL/JCIT(A). Further, ADDL/JCIT (A) decided the issue on merit as well and dismissed appeal of assesee vide order dated 15.03.2024. Assesee seems filed current appeal against the order of AddI. CIT/JCIT(A) on 27.03.2025 after a long delay and also not seems filed application for condonation of delay.Assesee had filed brief written submission but not appeared during hearing on 10.09.2025 before Hon'ble SMC bench and cases was heard by Hon'ble SMC bench. As directed brief submission on behalf of department is as under: 1. Delay in filing appeal: In subject case disputed order of Addl. CIT/JCIT(A) is dated 15.03.2024 and Assesee seems filed current appeal against the order of Addl. CIT/JCIT(A) on 27.03.2025 before Hon'ble ITAT after a long delay and also not seems filed any application for condonation of delay. In the written submission filed by Assesee also, any reason to explain delay has not been mentioned. It is worthwhile to mention that even before AddI. CIT/JCIT(A) also asssesee filed appeal with delay. Even ROI was filed with huge delay. So Assesee is habitual in filing ITRs/ appeals after the due dates with long delay and that too seems here without explaining any reason for delay before this Hon'ble bench & seems even without filing any application for delay condonation before this Hon'ble bench.
& 201/Rjt/2025 Kanatalaw Seva Sahkari Mandli Ltd. vs. ITO Hence, it is requested that delay may not be condoned and appeal of Assesee may be dismissed.
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.
& 201/Rjt/2025 Kanatalaw Seva Sahkari Mandli Ltd. vs. ITO e) As per provision of section 143(1) (a)(ii) CPC can make any adjustment w.rt Incorrect claim, if such incorrect claim is apparent from any Information in ITR. In this case due date of ROI as well as return filing date by Assesee both are information available in ROI and claim of Assesee for deduction u/s 80P is an apparent incorrect claim on the basis of this information, Incorrect claim of Assesee for deduction u/s BOP is clearly inconsistent with another entries of due date & return filing date (both available ITR). Hence, CPC was right in making such adjustment. f) Assesee in its written submission filed before Hon'ble bench relying upon the order of Hon'ble ITAT in the case of Lunidhar Seva Sahkari Mandall Ltd ITA 202/2022 dated 22.02.2023. This order was in turn seems relied upon judgement in the case of Chitrakal Service Co-operative Bank Ltd v CIT (2016). However, the same is not appliance in this case being different facts as well as in view of discussion made by Addl. CIT/JCIT(A) in the subject case of KANATALAW SEVA SAHAKARI MANDALI LTD AY 2018-19 in order dated 15.03.2024 at page 5 & 6 of order. In its order Addl. CIT/JCIT(A) has discussed judgement of Hon'ble High Court of Kerala in the case of M/s Nileswar Rangekallu Chethu Vyavasaya Thozhilali Sahakaran Sangam Vs CIT (2023) by which Hon'ble High court had discussed & changed the findings in the case of Chitrakal Service Co-operative Bank Ltd v CIT (2016) in view of amended provisions of section 80AC of the act. It is worthwhile to mention that order in the case of Chitrakal Service Co-operative Bank Ltd v CIT (2016) is an old order prior to amendment u/s 80AC and hence to be look into afresh in view of judgement of Hon'ble High Court of Kerala in the case of M/s Nileswar Rangekallu Chethu Vyavasaya Thozhilali Sahakaran Sangam Vs CIT (2023) which is a new order. Accordingly, order of Hon'ble ITAT in the case of Lunidhar Seva Sahkari Mandali Ltd ITA 202/2022 which in turn seems relied upon judgement in the case of Chitrakal Service Co-operative Bank Ltd v CIT (2016) also need to be looked into afresh in view of judgement of Hon'ble High Court of Kerala in the case of M/s Nileswar Rangekallu Chethu Vyavasaya Thozhilali Sahakaran Sangam Vs CIT (2023). By this order Hon'ble High Court made it clear that subsequent amendments to section 80AC......, it make the claim for deduction under section 80P conditional on filing a return with due date under section 139(1) of the IT Act. conditions for claiming deduction under section 80P of the I T act has been made more stringent by reducing the time..... In subject case since ROI was not filed in due time u/s 139(1), hence Judgement of Hon'ble High Court is clearly applicable. Hence, in view of the same claim of Assesee in this case to be rejected. g) Assesee had claimed that CPC had not provided opportunity before adjustment is factually wrong as CPC issued notice to Assesee on 10.05.2019 for proposed adjustment u/s 143(1)(a) & allowed time to asssesee to response in 30 days. (copy of notice already provided to Hon'ble bench by email on 09.09.2025 & enclosed again herewith). CPC passed order u/s 143(1) on 25.06.2019 after laps of sufficient time given to asssesee. Further, asseses also got opportunity before CIT(A) as well as before this bench. As mentioned in para 4.1 of order of Addl. CIT/JCIT(A) in the subject case of KANATALAW SEVA SAHAKARI MANDALI LTD AY 2018-19 & 201/Rjt/2025 Kanatalaw Seva Sahkari Mandli Ltd. vs. ITO in order dated 15.03.2024, as per judgement of Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in case of M.C. Mehta Vs UOI adoption of hyper technical approach would have defeated the end of justice. Further, in subject case CPC had even already provided opportunity before making any adjustment. Hence plea of Assesee may be rejected. h) In view of all above discussion, submission of Assesee that CPC is not authorised to make disallowance u/s 80P for the reason that return was not filed in time, this plea is required to be rejected as CPC had rightly made adjustment. i) Further I also rely upon the order passed by CPC, order passed by Addl. CIT/JCIT(A) and my oral arguments/submissions already made during the course of hearing on 10.09.2025 before this Hon'ble SMC Bench of ITAT.”
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.
& 201/Rjt/2025 Kanatalaw Seva Sahkari Mandli Ltd. vs. ITO
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.
Order pronounced in the open court on 06/11/2025.