KEERTI FLOUR MILLS,GUWAHATI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 1(3), GUWAHATI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 99/GTY/2025Status: DisposedITAT Guwahati21 August 2025AY 2020-21Bench: the first appellate authority and it was also prayed before him that the deduction under Section 80IE of the Act was due to the assessee and should have been allowed. The Ld. AR stated that due to non-condonation of delay by the first appellate authority, the assessee has been denied a justifiable claim under Section 80IE of the Act. The Ld. AR pleaded that the impugned order should be set aside and either his claim should be adjudicated on merit by this Bench or the matter could be, altern3 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeals before the first appellate authority, stating that it was in the interest of substantive justice. Consequently, the impugned orders were set aside, and the cases were remanded back to the Assessing Officer for fresh assessment, providing an opportunity of being heard to the assessee.

What were the facts?

Keerti Flour Mills appealed against orders for AY 2020-21 and 2021-22, where the CIT(A) had not condoned delays of 454 and 180 days, respectively. The delay was attributed to the COVID pandemic and prolonged illness of the principal person, leading to the denial of a deduction claim under Section 80IE of the Income Tax Act.

What were the issues?

Whether the delay in filing appeals before the CIT(A) should be condoned due to COVID pandemic and illness, thereby allowing the assessee to pursue a deduction claim under Section 80IE of the Income Tax Act.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 250,Section 80IE,Section 143(1)(a)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, GUWAHATI BENCH, GUWAHATI

Heard together (2 matters)

I.T.A. No. 99/GTY/2025
I.T.A. No. 100/GTY/2025

Read from the judgment's own cause title. This page is filed under one of them.

Assessment Year: 2020-21 & Assessment Year: 2021-22 Keerti Flour Mills, Garodia Mansion, SRCB Road, Fanc Bazar, Guwahati - 781001 [PAN: AAKFK2043F] .....................…...……………....Appellant vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward 1(3), Guwahati Aayakar Bhawan, Christian Basti, G.S. Road, Guwahati - 781005 ..................................... Respondent Appearances by: Assessee represented by : Sunil Sharma, AR Department represented by : Kausik Ray, JCIT Date of concluding the hearing : 12.08.2025 Date of pronouncing the order : 21.08.2025

ORDER PER SANJAY AWASTHI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER: 1. This is a batch of two appeals of the same assessee for Assessment Years (A.Y.) 2020-21 and 2021-22.

1.1 These appeals arise from orders dated 21.02.2025 (in both cases), passed by the Ld. Additional/Joint Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) [hereafter “the Ld. Addl./JCIT(A)]-4, Mumbai, under Section 250 of the & 100/GTY/2025 Keerti Flour Mills Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereafter “the Act”). For the sake of convenience both these appeals are being dealt with through a single order.

1.2 Right at the outset, the Ld. AR clearly mentioned that for both the years the Ld. CIT(A) has not condoned the delay of 454 days and 180 days respectively (for A.Ys 2020-21 and 2021-22). It was averred that the delay happened because of COVID Pandemic and prolonged illness of the principal persons (Shri Dilip Garodia). The Ld. AR mentioned that these facts were duly placed before the first appellate authority and it was also prayed before him that the deduction under Section 80IE of the Act was due to the assessee and should have been allowed. The Ld. AR stated that due to non-condonation of delay by the first appellate authority, the assessee has been denied a justifiable claim under Section 80IE of the Act. The Ld. AR pleaded that the impugned order should be set aside and either his claim should be adjudicated on merit by this Bench or the matter could be, alternatively, remanded back to the file of Ld. AO for fresh assessment under Section 143(1) of the Act.

1.2 The Ld. DR had no objection in case these matters were to be remanded back for fresh consideration.

2.

We have carefully considered the rival submissions and have gone through the records before us. It is felt that in the interest of substantive justice, the assessee deserves a chance to present the facts to enable him to claim to benefit of section 80IE of the Act. To this extent, we condone the delay for both the years before the first appellate authority and thereafter set aside both the impugned orders. We remand these cases back to the Ld. AO for fresh assessment after giving an opportunity of being heard to the assessee under the provision of section 143(1)(a), first proviso thereon. We direct accordingly,

3.

In result, both these appeals are allowed for statistical purposes.

& 100/GTY/2025 Keerti Flour Mills Order pronounced on 21.08.2025

More judgments on Section 80IE

All 99 judgments and leading authorities on Section 80IE →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →