Loading judgment…
Facts
The assessee, Latthe Education Society, a credit co-operative society, claimed a deduction of Rs.1,08,52,015/- under section 80P(2)(a)(i) of the IT Act for the assessment year 2020-21. The Assessing Officer completed the assessment under section 143(3) and disallowed the deduction, leading to an addition of Rs.1,08,52,015/-. The assessee appealed to the CIT(A)/NFAC, but the appeal was dismissed in limine due to a delay of 14 days.
Held
The Tribunal held that the reason for the delay in filing the appeal before the CIT(A)/NFAC, attributed to the Chartered Accountant's preoccupation with tax audit reports, appeared genuine. Therefore, the assessee was prevented by sufficient cause from filing the appeal within the prescribed time.
Key Issues
Whether the CIT(A)/NFAC erred in dismissing the appeal without condoning the 14-day delay, and if the delay was justifiable.
Sections Cited
80P, 143(3)
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, PUNE BENCH “A”, PUNE
Before: SHRI MANISH BORAD & SHRI VINAY BHAMORE
ORDER
PER VINAY BHAMORE, JM:
This appeal filed by the assessee is directed against the order dated 16.09.2025 passed by Ld. CIT(A)/NFAC for the assessment year 2020-21.
The appellant has raised the following grounds of appeal :-
1. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law the CIT(A), NFAC erred in confirming the action of the AO of denying deduction under section 80P in respect interest earned by the appellant society on deposits with other co-operative banks, not accepting the submission of the appellant in this respect.
The appellant prays that the AO be directed to delete the addition. The appellant craves leave to add, amend, alter, modify, delete or add a new ground of appeal before or at the time of hearing.”
3. Facts of the case, in brief, are that the assessee is a credit co- operative society duly registered under Maharashtra State Co- operative Societies Act and has furnished return of income on 19.10.2020 declaring total income of Rs.Nil after claiming deduction of Rs.1,08,52,015/- u/s 80P(2)(a)(i) of the IT Act. The case was selected under scrutiny through CASS. Statutory notices were issued to the assessee in response to which compliance was made by the assessee. The Assessing Officer completed the assessment proceedings u/s 143(3) of the IT Act and vide order dated 05.09.2022 determined income at Rs.1,08,52,015/- as against the income returned by the assessee at Rs.Nil. The above assessed income includes additions on account of disallowance of deduction u/s 80P(2)(a)(i) of the IT Act.
4. Being aggrieved with the above assessment order, the assessee preferred an appeal before Ld. CIT(A)/NFAC. Since the appeal was furnished belatedly i.e. with a delay of 14 days, Ld. CIT(A)/NFAC dismissed the appeal without condoning the delay.
5. It is the above order against which the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal.
When the appeal was called for hearing, neither anybody appeared from the side of the assessee nor any application for adjournment was filed by the assessee. Accordingly, we proceed to decide the appeal on the basis of material available on record and after hearing Ld. DR.
We have heard Ld. DR and perused the material available on record. In this regard, we find that Ld. CIT(A)/NFAC has rejected the application for condonation of delay and dismissed the appeal in limine solely on the ground of 14 days delay. We further find that it was contended before Ld. CIT(A)NFAC that the assessment order was received in the month of September and the Chartered Accountant was busy in tax audit reports since 30th September was the last date and due to this reason alone he could not file the appeal within the prescribed time limit and a delay of 14 days occurred. The reason of delay advanced before Ld. CIT(A)/NFAC appears to be genuine and therefore we are of the considered opinion that the assessee was prevented by sufficient and reasonable cause in not filing the appeal within the prescribed time limit.
Considering the totality of the facts of the case and in the interest of justice, without going into merits of the case, we deem it fit to set-aside the order passed by Ld. CIT(A)/NFAC and remand the matter back to the file of Ld. CIT(A)/NFAC with a direction to