Loading judgment…
Facts
The assessee, a cooperative society, claimed a deduction u/s 80P for nil income, which the AO partly disallowed along with an addition of rental income. The assessee's subsequent appeal to the CIT(A) was filed with a delay of 236 days and was dismissed in limine by the CIT(A) on the grounds of limitation, as 'sufficient cause' for the delay was not found.
Held
The tribunal, citing Supreme Court precedents emphasizing a liberal approach to condonation of delay, found that the CIT(A) erred in dismissing the appeal on technical grounds. It condoned the 236-day delay, set aside the CIT(A)'s order, and restored the appeal to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication on merits.
Key Issues
Whether the CIT(A) was justified in dismissing the assessee's appeal in limine due to being time-barred without condoning the delay.
Sections Cited
Section 80P, Section 143(3), Section 144B, Section 5 of the Limitation Act, Order 22 Rule 9 of CPC
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, DELHI BENCH “SMC”, DELHI
Before: SHRI VIKAS AWASTHY
बनाम Vs. Income Tax Officer, Shaadi Nagar, Rampur, ..... �ितवादी/Respondent Uttar Pradesh 244901 अपीलाथ� �ारा/ Appellant by : S/Shri Ibad Mushtaq, & F.A Ayyubi, Advocates �ितवादी�ारा/Respondent by : Shri Sanjay Kumar , Sr. DR सुनवाई क� ितिथ/ Date of hearing : 01/10/2024 घोषणा क� ितिथ/ Date of pronouncement : : 01/10/2024 आदेश/ORDER
PER VIKAS AWASTHY, JM:
This appeal by the assessee is directed against the order of Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi (hereinafter referred to as 'the CIT(A)') dated 26.12.2023, for assessment year 2020-21.
The ld. Counsel for the assessee submits that assessee is a cooperative society of farmers registered under Cooperative Societies Act. The assesssee has filed its return of income for the impugned assessment year declaring total income as Nil, after claiming deduction of Rs.1,16,59,419/- u/s. 80P of the Income Tax Act, 1961(hereinafter referred to as 'the Act’). During assessment proceedings the Assessing Officer (AO) disallowed assessee’s claim of deduction of interest income Rs. 12,18,305/- u/s. 80P of the Act and also made addition of rental income Rs.24,000/- . Aggrieved by the assessment order dated 06.09.2022 passed u/s. 143(3) r.w.s. 144B of the Act, the assessee filed appeal before the CIT(A). The appeal filed by the assessee before the CIT(A) was time barred by 236 days. The assessee filed application for condonation of delay giving reasons for delay in filing of appeal. The CIT(A) without appreciating the reasons dismissed appeal of assessee in limine on the ground of limitation. Hence, this appeal by the assessee.
Per contra, Shri Sanjay Kumar representing the department submitted that the CIT(A) has considered the assessee application for condonation of delay. The CIT(A) after examining the same came to the conclusion that the reasons given by the assessee does not reflect “sufficient cause” for delay in filing of appeal. He prayed for upholding the impugned order and dismissing appeal of the assessee.
Both sides heard, order of the authorities below examined. This appeal by the assessee is against the order of CIT(A) dismissing appeal of the assessee on the ground of limitation. The Hon’ble Apex Court in various decisions has held that acceptance of explanation furnished for delay should be the rule and refusal, an exception. The explanation causing condonation of delay should not be rejected taking a hyper technical and Pedantic approach.
The Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Collector Land Acquisition vs. Mst. Katiji & Ors. 1987 taxmann.com 1072 has held that liberal approach should be adopted while dealing with an application praying for condonation of delay. Refusing to condone delay can result in meritorious matter being thrown out at the very threshold and cause of justice being defeated. Pedantic and hyper technical approach should not be adopted while dealing with an application for condonation of delay.
The Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Ram Nath Sao @ Ram Nath Sahu And Others vs Gobardhan Sao and Others has held that the expression “sufficient cause” within the meaning of Section 5 of the Limitation Act or Order 22 Rule 9 of CPC or any other similar provision should receive a liberal construction so as to advance substantial justice. The courts should not proceed with the tendency of finding fault with cause shown and reject the petition by a slipshod order in over jubilation of disposal derive. Acceptance of explanation furnished should be the rule and refusal, an exception, more so when no negligence or inaction or want of bonafides can be imputed to the defaulting party. 7. In view of the law expounded by the Hon’ble Apex Court in dealing with condonation application and considering the reasons given by the assessee causing delay in filing of appeal before the First Appellant Authority, the delay for 236 days in filing of appeal is condoned. The appeal is restored to CIT(A) for fresh adjudication on merits after affording reasonable opportunity of making submissions to the assessee in accordance with law.
In the result, impugned order is set aside and appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purpose. Order pronounced in the open court on Tuesday the 01st day of October, 2024.
Sd/- Sd/- (VIKAS AWASTHY) �याियक सद�य/JUDICIAL MEMBER िद�ी/Delhi, �दनांक/Dated 01/10/2024 NV/- �ितिलिप अ�ेिषतCopy of the Order forwarded to :
1. 1. अपीलाथ�/The Appellant , �ितवादी/ The Respondent. 2.
3. The PCIT िवभागीय �ितिनिध, आय.अपी.अिध., िद�ी /DR, ITAT, िद�ी 4. 5. गाड� फाइल/Guard file. BY ORDER, //True Copy//
(Dy./Asstt. Registrar) ITAT, DELHI