Loading judgment…
Facts
The appeals were filed belatedly by the assessee. The delay was attributed to the preoccupation of the office bearers, who are scientists at ISRO, with Chandrayaan-3 and Aditya-L1 missions. The assessee sought condonation of the delay.
Held
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeals, considering the bonafide reasons provided by the assessee and the fact that the office bearers were engaged in national development work. The Tribunal noted that the NFAC had not considered relevant Supreme Court decisions regarding Section 80P(2)(d) deduction.
Key Issues
Whether the delay in filing the appeals should be condoned, and whether the NFAC correctly applied the Supreme Court's decisions regarding Section 80P(2)(d) deduction.
Sections Cited
80P(2)(d), 250
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, ‘B’ BENCH : BANGALORE
Before: SHRI CHANDRA POOJARI & SMT. BEENA PILLAI
Assessee by : Shri H.R. Suresh, CA : Shri Subramanian .S, JCIT Revenue by (DR) Date of Hearing : 30-01-2024 Date of Pronouncement : 31-01-2024 ORDER PER BEENA PILLAI, JUDICIAL MEMBER Present appeals arises out of the separate orders passed by the NFAC, Delhi dated 22.06.2023 for A.Ys. 2015-16 and 2017-18 and order dated 23.06.2023 for A.Y. 2018-19.
Page 2 of 8 to 1074/Bang/2023 2. Brief facts of the case are as under: 2.1 At the outset, the Ld.AR submitted that the present appeals has been filed belatedly before this Tribunal with a delay of 109 days for A.Ys. 2015-16 & 2017-18 and a delay of 99 days for A.Y. 2018-19. He also submitted that there was a delay in filing the appeal before NFAC of about 83 days in all the assessment years under consideration which was however condoned and the appeals were decided on merits.
2.2 The Ld.AR submitted that the NFAC did not consider the decisions of Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of Mavilayi Service Co- operative Bank Ltd. v. CIT reported in 431 ITR 1 and various other decisions which has been passed subsequent to the impugned orders by Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of 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. He therefore submitted that the issue needs to be readjudicated based on the observations of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the above referred cases.
2.3 For the delay in filing the appeals before this Tribunal, the Ld.AR has filed an application for condonation of delay with the affidavit stating as under:
Page 3 of 8 to 1074/Bang/2023 Page 4 of 8 ITA Nos. 1072 to 1074/Bang/2023 Page 5 of 8 ITA Nos. 1072 to 1074/Bang/2023 Page 6 of 8 ITA Nos. 1072 to 1074/Bang/2023 He submitted that in the interest of justice, the condonation may be granted to assessee for the issues in the present appeals to be considered on merits. The Ld.DR strongly opposed the condonation petition along with the affidavit filed by the assessee, however could not controvert the circumstances that led to the delay as mentioned in the affidavit. The Ld.AR submitted that all the affidavits in the appeals are identical and the same may be considered. We have perused the submissions advanced by both sides in the light of records placed before us.
Page 7 of 8 to 1074/Bang/2023 3. Admittedly, ISRO is a prestigious organisation and is working towards the development of the country. The officials of the organisation are the office bearers of the assessee. It cannot be ignored that the office bearers were deployed with various responsible duties at the relevant period when the appeal should have been filed. It also cannot be ignored that these officials were undoubtedly working towards the development of the country and therefore their non-availability deserves to be considered. In the interest of justice, we deem it appropriate to condone the delay as the reasons for the delay mentioned in the affidavits are sufficient to explain the delay caused in filing the present appeals before this Tribunal. We therefore condone the delay caused in filing the present appeals before this Tribunal in all the appeals under consideration. Accordingly, the application for condonation of delay dated 08.12.2023 stands allowed.
Coming to the merits of the case, as rightly submitted by the Ld.AR that the directions of Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of Mavilayi Service Co- operative Bank Ltd. v. CIT (supra) is not considered by the NFAC. Further in a subsequent decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of Kerala State Co-operative Agricultural and Rural Development Bank Ltd. KSCARDB vs. The Assessing Officer, Trivandrum & Ors. (supra), Hon’ble Supreme Court analysed applicability of section 80P(2)(d) deduction to an assessee in great detail. The NFAC / Ld.CIT(A) is directed to consider the claims by the assessee in the light of the aforestated decisions by Hon’ble Supreme Court. In the interest of justice, we remand these appeals back to NFAC / Ld.CIT(A) for Page 8 of 8 to 1074/Bang/2023 readjudication on merits. The Ld.AR is directed to fill all relevant documents / decisions available on these issues before the NFAC / Ld.CIT(A) and the NFAC/Ld.CIT(A) shall pass a detailed order on merits. Accordingly, the appeals filed by the assessee stands partly allowed for statistical purposes. In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee stands partly allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced in the open court on 31st January, 2024.