Loading judgment…
Facts
The assessee filed an appeal against the order of the CIT(A) with a delay of more than 2 years. The CIT(A) rejected the condonation petition due to lack of 'sufficient cause' and confirmed the AO's order. The assessee contended that the disallowance under section 80P(2)(c) / 80P(2)(d) was uncalled for.
Held
The Tribunal found that there was a 'sufficient cause' for the delay in filing the appeal before the CIT(A). The rejection under section 249(2) r.w.s. 249(3) was considered unjustified. However, the assessee had not filed an affidavit explaining the delay.
Key Issues
Whether the CIT(A) was justified in rejecting the condonation of delay petition? Whether the disallowance under section 80P(2)(c) / 80P(2)(d) is sustainable?
Sections Cited
250, 143(1), 154, 249(2)(b), 249(2), 249(3), 80P(2)(c), 80P(2)(d)
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, MUMBAI BENCH “H(SMC
Before: SHRI ANIKESH BANERJEE & SHRI GAGAN GOYAL
Instant appeal of the assessee was filed against the order of theLearned Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) Addl / JCIT(A)-1, Hyderabad[for brevity, ‘Ld.CIT(A)’] passed under section 250 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (in short, ‘the Act’), for Assessment Year 2019-20, date of order16.05.2024.The CPC, Bengaluru
We heard the rival submission and considered the documents available in the record. The Ld.AR has invited our attention that the appeal was filed before the CIT(A) against the order of the CPC Bengaluru with a delay of more than 2 years by contravening Section 249(2)(b) of the Act. After receiving the intimation under section 143(1) of the Act, the assessee filed a petition under section 154 for rectification of the demand. But no reply was received from the department. Finally, the appeal was filed with a delay of more than 2 years. The condonation petition was filed before the ld. CIT(A). But the ld.CIT(A) had rejected the condonation due to lack of ‘sufficient cause’ and confirmed the order of the ld. AO. The ld.AR informed that the issue was already covered by the judicial pronouncements. So, the entire disallowance under section 80P(2)(c) / 80P(2)(d) amount to Rs.50,000/- is uncalled for but the ld.CIT(A) passed the appeal order without considering the merit of the case.
The Ld.DR argued and fully relied on the order of the revenue authorities.
Considering the above submission of the parties, we find that there is “sufficient cause” for delay in filing of appeal before the ld. CIT(A). The rejection under section 249(2) r.w.s. 249(3) is unjustified. But, on the other hand, the assessee has not filed any affidavit before theLd.CIT(A) during appeal proceeding. Accordingly, we direct the assessee to file an affidavit before theld. CIT(A) with an application for condonation of delay explaining the day wise delay to file the appeal before the ld. CIT(A). Further, the entire matter is remanded back to the file ofld.CIT(A) with a direction to condone delay in filing the appeal after Ashoka Garden Enclave Co-operative Housing Society Limited receiving the affidavit and condonation petition and pass a speaking order. Needless to say, theassessee should get a reasonable opportunity of hearing in setaside proceeding. On the other hand, the assessee should be diligent and co- operative before the ld.CIT(A) for expeditious completion of set aside proceeding.
In the result, the appeal of the assessee bearing