Loading judgment…
Facts
The assessee, a co-operative society, filed an appeal before the CIT(A) with a delay of 34 days. The delay was attributed to the ill health of the society's Principal Officer. The CIT(A) rejected the delay condonation application and dismissed the appeal. The assessee then appealed to the Tribunal.
Held
The Tribunal noted that the delay was due to the ill health of the Principal Officer, which was a sufficient cause. The medical certificate was produced before the Tribunal. The Tribunal condoned the delay of 34 days, finding it not inordinate.
Key Issues
Whether the delay of 34 days in filing the appeal before the CIT(A) was sufficiently caused and should be condoned to decide the appeal on merits.
Sections Cited
250, 144, 69A, 80P, 115BBE
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “A” BENCH : BANGALORE
Before: SHRI GEORGE GEORGE K & SHRI WASEEM AHMEDR
Per George George K, Vice President:
This appeal at the instance of the assessee is directed against the order of CIT(A) dated 20.02.2024, passed under section 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter called ‘the Act’). The relevant Assessment Year is 2017-18.
The grounds raised read as follows:
The orders of the authorities below in so far as they are against the appellant are opposed to law, equity, weight of evidence, probabilities, facts and circumstances of the case. 2. The learned CIT[A] is not justified in refusing to condone the delay in filing the appeal without appreciating that the delay of 34 days was due
ITA No.726/Bang/2024 Page 2 of 4
to sufficient cause on account of the ill-health of the Principal Officer of the appellant who was not attending office for 3 months under the facts and in the circumstances of the appellant's case. 3. The learned CIT[A] is not justified in disposing off the appeal ex-parte without allowing sufficient and real opportunity to the appellant to represent the case and hence, the impugned order passed requires to be cancelled. 4. The learned CIT[A] is not justified in upholding the denial of the deduction of Rs. 3.225/- u/s 80P of the Act on the ground that the appellant has not filed its return of income for the year under appeal under the facts and in the circumstances of the appellant's case. 5. The learned CIT[A] is not justified in upholding the addition of Rs. 26.03,000/- made as unexplained cash credit U/s 69A of the Act, rejecting the bonafide explanation tendered by the appellant for the source of the cash deposits made from the members of the society which addition has been made on the ground that the appellant had accepted the specified bank notes that was no longer legal tender under the facts and in the circumstances of the appellant's case. 6. The learned CIT[A] is not justified in upholding the tax imposed under the provisions of section 115BBE at the rate of 60% under the facts and in the circumstances of the appellant's case. 7. For the above and other grounds that may be urged at the time of hearing of the appeal, your appellant humbly prays that the appeal may be allowed and Justice rendered and the appellant may be awarded costs in prosecuting the appeal and also order for the refund of the institution fees as part of the costs.
Brief facts of the case are as follows:
Assessee is a primary co-operative agriculture and rural development society. It is engaged in the business of providing credit facilities to its members. Assessment was completed under section 144 of the Act vide order dated 02.12.2019. In the assessment completed, an addition was made under section
ITA No.726/Bang/2024 Page 3 of 4
69A of the Act of Rs.26,06,225/-, being unexplained cash credits. The net profit of Rs.3,225/- was also added without giving the benefit of deduction under section 80P of the Act, since assessee did not file any return of income.
Aggrieved by the assessment completed under section 144 of the Act, assessee filed appeal before the First Appellate Authority (FAA) with a delay of 34 days. Before the CIT(A), the reason for delay stated by the assessee was that the Manager being the principal officer of the assessee society who was looking after the affairs of the society, had health issues and had undergone operation which had prevented her from attending office for three months. The CIT(A), however, rejected the delay condonation application and dismissed the appeal of the assessee in limine.
Aggrieved by the Order of the CIT(A), assessee has filed the present appeal before the Tribunal. The learned AR has placed on record the medical report of the Manager of the assessee society. It was contended by the learned AR that CIT(A) had given only one opportunity to explain the case and the reasons for the delay in filing the appeal. It was submitted that the medical certification could not be produced before the CIT(A) on time and the CIT(A) hastily passed the impugned Order.
The learned Standing Counsel supported the Order of the CIT(A).
We have heard the rival submissions and perused the material on record. The CIT(A) has dismissed the appeal of the assessee in limine without condoning the delay of 34 days in filing the appeal before him. In the reason stated for condonation of the delay [extracted at para 6.2 of the impugned order of the CIT(A)], it has been clearly mentioned that assessee’s Manager being the Principal Officer was looking after the affairs of the society and in view of ill health of the
ITA No.726/Bang/2024 Page 4 of 4
Manager, she was absent from her duties for three months and therefore the appeal could not be filed on time. The assessee has placed on record the medical certificate for surgery performed on the Manager of the assessee society. The same was not placed before the CIT(A) since only one opportunity to explain was given to the assessee during the course of proceedings before the FAA. We are of the view that there is sufficient cause in late filing of the appeal before the FAA. Moreover, the delay is not inordinate. Therefore, we condone the delay of 34 days in filing the appeal before the CIT(A). Hence, we restore the matter to the CIT(A) to adjudicate the issue on merits. It is ordered accordingly.
In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes.
Pronounced in the open court on the date mentioned on the caption page. Sd/- Sd/- Sd/- (WASEEM AHMED) (GEORGE GEORGE K) Accountant Member Vice President Bangalore. Dated: 11.06.2024. /NS/*
Copy to: 1. Appellants 2. Respondent 3. DRP 4. CIT 5. CIT(A) 6. DR, ITAT, Bangalore. 7. Guard file By order
Assistant Registrar, ITAT, Bangalore.