Loading judgment…
Facts
The assessee, Kolandapalayam Primary Agricultural Cooperative Credit Society, filed an appeal against the order of the CIT(A) for assessment year 2012-13, challenging the denial of deduction under section 80P. The appeal was filed with a significant delay, which the assessee attributed to lack of familiarity with the faceless assessment system and the impact of Covid-19.
Held
The Tribunal acknowledged the delay in filing the appeal but found merit in the assessee's explanation, noting that the CIT(A) had not decided the case on merits. Therefore, the Tribunal condoned the delay, set aside the CIT(A)'s order, and remanded the matter for fresh adjudication on its merits.
Key Issues
Whether the delay in filing the appeal can be condoned and the matter remanded to the CIT(A) for adjudication on merits.
Sections Cited
80P, 147, 143(3), 250
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, ‘ A’ BENCH: CHENNAI
Before: SHRI ABY T VARKEY & SHRI AMITABH SHUKLA
आदेश / O R D E R PER AMITABH SHUKLA, A.M :
This appeal is filed against the order bearing DIN & Order No.ITBA/NFAC/S/250/2022-23/1044249099(1) dated 28.07.2022 of the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax [herein after “CIT(A), National Faceless Appeal Center[NFAC], Delhi, for the assessment years 2012- 13. Through the aforesaid appeal the assesse has challenged order u/s 250 dated 28.07.2022 passed by NFAC, Delhi.
2.0 It has been noted that there is a delay of 599 days in the case, in filing of this appeal before the tribunal. In its affidavit the assesse has pleaded that the assesse is a Primary Agricultural Society and not conversant with the faceless working of the Income Tax Department. It was submitted that the assesse had filed an appeal before the CIT(A) contesting the order of Ld. AO denying the deduction u/s 80P. The assesse was not aware that his appeal was dismissed by the Ld. CIT(A) and learned of it only when it was filing its return of income for AY-2023- 24. All these activities contributed to the delay which was neither willful nor wanton. The assesse has submitted that the denial of deduction u/s 80P is not sustainable under the eyes of law and would be deleted during the judicial scrutiny. The assesse accordingly requested that the delay may be condoned and the appeal may be adjudicated. We have considered the justification put forth by the assesse and we are satisfied with their adequacy. We are also conscious of the fact that no litigant gains by intentionally delaying its own matters. The Ld. DR submitted that the assesse is a habitual defaulter and costs may be imposed. Accordingly, we hereby condone the delay and proceed to adjudicate this appeal.
3.0 At the outset the Ld. Counsel for the assesse informed that the Ld. First Appellate Authority has passed an ex-parte order thereby confirming the assessment order u/s 147 r.w.s 143(3) dated 12/12/19 and that the appeal was dismissed for being filed late without any justified grounds. It was pleaded that the assesse had committed delay of just 98 days and for which it had justified grounds. It was stated that the assesse is a primary agricultural society and was not conversant with electronic functioning of Income Tax. The assesse had also submitted that some delay is also attributable to Covid-19. It was argued that the CIT(A) has not given any decision on the merits of the case. The Ld. Counsel accordingly submitted the matter may be restored to Ld. CIT(A) for readjudication on its merits and that it shall make full compliance to the notices of Ld. CIT(A). The Ld. DR on the other hand is stated that assesse is habitual defaulter and does not deserves any leniency.
4.0 We have heard the rival submissions in the light of material available on records. It is trite law that no litigant benefits by non- prosecution of its case. Though we find sufficient force in the pleadings of the assesse as to why it could not file its appeal in time, it is noted that the assesse has defaulted with statutory timelines both before the Ld. First Appellate Authority as well as this Tribunal. The assesse therefore cannot go scott free and deserves imposition of costs. We therefore impose a costs of Rs. 5000/- upon the assesse to be deposited to the Tamil Nadu State Legal Services Authority of Hon’ble High Court of Madras within 30 days on receipt of this order and receipt thereof would be shown to the Ld. First Appellate Authority.
5.0 Coming to the order of Ld. First Appellate Authority, we have also noted that apart from merely harping on the issue of delayed filing by the assesse the Ld. CIT(A) has not touched upon merits of the case. We are therefore of the view that ends of justice would be met if the case is set aside to the file of the Ld. CIT(A) to condone the delay of 98 days in filing of appeal in this case and for readjudication after giving opportunities of being heard to the assesse and to pass a speaking order. The Ld. CIT(A) will be at liberty to call for any remand report from the Ld. AO if warranted by the facts of the case. The assesse shall be bound to comply to all the notices and details called by the Ld. CIT(A). Any non- compliance from the assesse side shall be adversely viewed. Accordingly, we set aside the order of the Ld. First Appellate Authority and direct him to readjudicate the matter de novo. Accordingly, the grounds of appeal raised by the assesse are allowed for statistical purposes.