M/S. VASAVI CREDIT CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETY LIMITED,RAICHUR vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER, WARD-1, RAICHUR

At the outset, the Ld.AR submitted that the Ld.CIT(A) did not decide the issue on merits and dismissed the appeal as the appeal filed was time barred. The Ld.AR submitted that appeal

The Ld.AR submitted that the reason for the delay was mentioned in form 35 that reads as under: “The Appellant submits that the Order was passed on 19.09.2022, however, the communication regarding the same passed into the spam folder of the Appellant's registered email. The Appellant therefore was unaware of the Order being passed until the end of January. Once the Appellant learned that the Order was passed, the same was forwarded to the authorized representative to prepare and file the appeal. The appeal then came to be prepared and is filed with a delay of 133 days. The Appellant submits that there was no mens rea, and the delay occurred entirely due to circumstances beyond the control of the Appellant. The Appellant most humbly prays that the delay be condoned in the interest of justice, and the appeal admitted and heard on merits.”

The Ld.AR submitted that assessee is a credit co-operative society and carries out the activity of extending loans to its members out of which assessee has earned interest which was claimed as exempt u/s. 80P(2)(a)(i) of the act.

The Ld.AR submitted that assessee has also earned interest out of deposits made in scheduled banks. She submitted that the issues has to be analysed in the light of the decisions placed by Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of Mavilayi Service Co- operative Bank Ltd. v. CIT reported in 431 ITR 1 and Kerala State Co- operative Agricultural and Rural Development Bank Ltd. KSCARDB vs. The Assessing Officer, Trivandrum & Ors. in Civil Appeal Nos. 10069 of 2016 dated 14.09.2023.

She thus prayed that the appeal may be remanded to the Ld.AO for necessary verification and for consideration of the claim in accordance with law.

On the contrary, the Ld.DR submitted that assessee has not justified the delay caused in filing the appeal before the Ld.CIT(A) and therefore the NFAC has rightly dismissed the appeal without condonation. He thus vehemently supported the orders passed by the authorities below.

We have perused the submissions advanced by both sides in the light of records placed before us. We note that there is no delay in filing the present appeal before this Tribunal.

The assessee had stated the reason or the delay before the Ld.CIT(A) that as the communication from the authorities was received in SPAM folder of the assessee’s email, assessee went unnoticed. It was only when the assessee received the order of the Ld.AO, the papers were forwarded to the representative who then prepared the appeal to be filed before this Tribunal.

On merits, it is noted that the issue needs detailed consideration of evidence and verification in the light of the ratios expounded by Hon’ble Supreme Court in the decisions relied by the Ld.AR hereinabove. In our view, the issue relating to

In the present case, the assessee has explained the reason that caused delay in filing appeal before the Ld.CIT(A). The reason cited is a reasonable cause on the part of the assessee for not filing the appeal within the period of limitation. One should keep in mind that while construing the expressions “sufficient cause”, the principle leading to advancement of substantial justice must be of prior importance, and the interpretation of the expression “sufficient cause” must be construed liberally. In view of the above, we have condoned the delay caused in filing the appeal before the Ld.CIT(A).

On merits of the case, we note that consistently this Tribunal has been remanding the issue relating to the deductions u/s. 80P(2)(a)(i)/(d) to the Ld.CIT(A) for necessary verification as per the ratios laid down by Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of Mavilayi Service Co- operative Bank Ltd. v. CIT (supra) and Kerala State Co- operative Agricultural and Rural Development Bank Ltd. KSCARDB

With similar directions and in the interest of justice, we remand this issue to the Ld.AO for necessary verification and to consider the claim in accordance with law. The Ld.AO is also directed to consider the directions as per the decision of this Tribunal in case of M/s. Chokkadi Vyavasaya Seva Sahakari Bank Niyamitha vs. ITO in ITA Nos. 253 & 254/Bang/2024 vide order dated 29.04.2024 in respect of the issues and the claim of deduction u/s. 80P(2)(d). Accordingly, the grounds raised by the assessee stands partly allowed for statistical purposes. In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee stands partly allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced in the open court on 31st May, 2024.