Loading judgment…
Facts
The assessee, a Co-Operative Credit Society, filed its ITR for AY 2020-21 claiming NIL income after a deduction u/s 80P(2). The AO denied the deduction due to the assessee's failure to provide proof of registration as a Co-Operative Society, assessing income u/s 143(3) and imposing a 200% penalty u/s 270A. The assessee's appeals against these orders were unsuccessful before the Ld. National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC).
Held
The tribunal condoned an 89-day delay in filing the appeals, noting that the reasons for the delay also prevented the assessee from prosecuting the appeals before the NFAC. Without commenting on the merits of the case, the tribunal set aside the ex-parte orders and remanded both matters to the Ld. NFAC for de-novo adjudication, granting the assessee another opportunity to present its case.
Key Issues
Condonation of delay in filing appeals; eligibility for deduction under Section 80P(2); validity of penalty imposed under Section 270A; remand of appeals for de-novo adjudication.
Sections Cited
Section 250, Section 253(3), Section 80P(2), Section 143(1), Section 143(2), Section 143(3), Section 270A, Section 270A(9), Section 246A
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, PANAJI BENCH, PANAJI
Before: HON’BLE SHRI PAVAN KUMAR GADALE & SHRI G. D. PADMAHSHALI
ORDER PER G. D. PADMAHSHALI, AM; This twin appeals are instituted by the assessee against respective orders passed by the Ld. National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi [for short ‘Ld. NFAC’] u/s 250 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 [for short ‘the Act’] relating to assessment year 2020-21.
ITAT-Panaji Page 1 of 4 & 015/PAN/2025 AY:2020-21 Since the facts & issue arising out of the both these appeals 2. are interrelated, upon rival party’s request and for the sake of brevity these appeals taken up together for hearing for being disposed-off by a consolidated order.
These appeals are time barred by 89 days. From the reasons 3. stated in the affidavit we are of the considered view that, the assessee for a sufficient reasons was prevented from filing these twin appeals within the prescribed limit terms of section 253(3) of the Act. Consequently, applying the test laid in ‘CIT Vs KSP Shanmugavel Nadai Ors’ [1985, 153 ITR 596 (Mad)] we condone the aforestated delay and admit the same for adjudication on merit The long and short of the quantum appeal is that; the 4. assessee is a Co-Operative Credit Society registered u/s 10 of the Bombay Act State, 1925. For the year under consideration the assessee filed its return of income ['ITR' hereafter] on 29/12/2020 declaring total income of ₹NIL/- after claiming ₹82,11,331/- as deduction u/s 80P(2) of the Act. The said return in first placed ITAT-Panaji Page 2 of 4 & 015/PAN/2025 AY:2020-21 was processed u/s 143(1) of the Act and later selected for scrutiny vide notice dt. 29/06/2021 u/s 143(2) of the Act. In the event of assessee’s failure to adduce the copy of registration as a ‘Co- Operative’ Society, under the provisions of Karnataka State Co- operative Societies Act 1959, the Ld. AO held the assessee as ineligible for 80P(2) deduction and thus denied the claim for deduction and assessed the total income accordingly u/s 143(3) of the Act.
5. Pursuant to aforestated assessment a consequential penalty proceedings u/s 270A of the Act were initiated and in the event of assessee’s effective failure to refute the negative findings/conclusion, the Ld. AO culminated the proceedings by imposing a penalty equal to 200% of tax sought to be evaded under s/s (9) of section 270A of the Act.
Aggrieved assessee unsuccessfully aforestated orders separately u/s 246A of the Act. Thus, hurt by the orders of tax authorities below, the assessee society came in present appeals.
ITAT-Panaji Page 3 of 4 & 015/PAN/2025 AY:2020-21
We have heard the rival party’s submission on the limited issue of fitness of these cases for their remand to the file of Ld. NFAC and perused the material placed on records. We note that, the reasons which prevented the appellant from filing these appeals within the prescribed time limit had also prevented the appellant from prosecuting the appeals before the Ld. NFAC.
Since the sufficiency of such reasons is already established, we therefore deem it fit to accord one more opportunity to the appellant to represent these cases on merits before the Ld. NFAC which can only be possible on their remand. In the event, without offering our comments on merits, we set-aside both the ex-parte impugned orders and remit them to Ld. NFAC for de-novo adjudication in accordance with law.
In result, these appeals are ALLOWED for statistical purposes. 8. In terms of rule 34 of ITAT Rules, the order pronounced in the open court the date mentioned hereinbefore.