Loading judgment…
Facts
The assessee faced a 1-day delay in filing an appeal before the Tribunal and an 83-day delay before the CIT(A). The initial reason provided for the delay was a change in management, but this was not adequately substantiated before the CIT(A), leading to dismissal. Before the Tribunal, the assessee presented that the delay was due to the treasurer's death from cancer, a fact not contradicted by the Revenue.
Held
The Tribunal condoned the 83-day delay in filing the appeal before the CIT(A) considering the explanation of the treasurer's death as a bonafide and genuine reason. On merits, the Tribunal directed the AO to allow the interest earned from Saraswat Co-operative Bank under Section 80P(2)(d) based on parity with subsequent assessment years where similar interest was allowed.
Key Issues
Whether the delay in filing the appeal before the CIT(A) is condonable and whether the interest earned from Saraswat Co-operative Bank should be allowed under Section 80P(2)(d) based on parity.
Sections Cited
250, 80P(2)(d)
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, MUMBAI BENCH “SMC”, MUMBAI
Before: SHRI NARENDER KUMAR CHOUDHRY
Per : Narender Kumar Choudhry, Judicial Member:
This appeal has been preferred by the Assessee against the order dated 09.05.2024, impugned herein, passed by the National Faceless Appeal Centre/Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) (in short Ld. Commissioner) under section 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short ‘the Act’) for the A.Y. 2021-22.
At the outset, this Court observed that though in Form No.35, the Assessee in para-no.15, with regard to the delay of 83 days in filing the appeal before the Ld. Commissioner, has submitted as under:
“There is a delay in filing the appeal as there was some change in the management committee.”
However, the Assessee before the Ld. Commissioner has failed to demonstrate and substantiate the said reason for delay and therefore the Ld. Commissioner dismissed the appeal of the Assessee in limine and without going into the merits of the case.
The Assessee therefore being aggrieved in in appeal. The Ld. Counsel Shri Keyur Hindocha demonstrated before this Court that there was some change in the management of the Assessee society and Mr. Lokesh Kumar Jha was appointed as a “Treasurer” to look after the case before the Ld. Commissioner, however, unfortunately Mr. Jha suffered was diagnosed with cancer and ultimately died on 5th June, 2024 and therefore proper and explainable cause remained to be shown before the Ld. Commissioner.
The ld. DR though relied on the orders passed by the authorities below and refuted the claim of the Assessee but has not filed any contrary material to contradict the claim of the Assessee.
Considering the peculiar facts and circumstances and the reason given by the Assessee as bonafide, unintentional and genuine, this Court is inclined to condone the delay occurred in filing the appeal before the Ld. Commissioner. Thus, the delay of 83 Occurred before Ld. Commissioner, is condoned.
Coming to the merits of the case, the Assessee submitted that in the subsequent years, the interest earned from Saraswat Co-operative Bank has been allowed by the Assessing Officer (AO) itself and therefore on the basis of parity, as the Assessee during the AY under consideration has also earned the interest of Rs. 8,97,874 from the same bank and therefore the same may be allowed u/s 80P(2)(d) of the Act. The Ld. DR on the contrary refuted the claim of the Assessee. Considering the peculiar facts and circumstances in totality, as the AO in the subsequent years, has allowed the interest earned from Saraswat Co-operative Bank as involved in this case u/s 80P(2)(d) of the Act and there is no difference in facts and issues except variation in amounts involved in this case and the A.Ys. 2022-23 & 2023-24 and therefore the AO is directed to follow the consistency and consider the claim of the Assessee and allow the same on the same reasoning, as done in the A.Ys. 2022-23 & 2023-24.