A AYEEPALAYAM PRIMARY AGRO CO-OP CREDIT SOCIETY LTD.,NAMAKKAL vs. ITO, WARD-1, NAMAKKAL

PDF · subscribers
ITA 1531/CHNY/2024Status: DisposedITAT Chennai26 July 2024AY 2020-21Bench: SHRI S.S. VISWANETHRA RAVI, HON’BLE (Judicial Member), SHRI S. R. RAGHUNATHA, HON’BLE (Accountant Member)6 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) erred in dismissing the appeals solely on the ground of delay without providing an opportunity for hearing. The appeals were remitted back to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication on merits.

What were the facts?

The assessee, a cooperative credit society, claimed deduction under Section 80P for AYs 2018-19 and 2020-21. The Assessing Officer denied this deduction and levied penalty. The assessee filed appeals before the CIT(A) with a delay.

What were the issues?

Whether the CIT(A) was justified in dismissing the appeals without condoning the delay and without adjudicating on merits, and whether an opportunity for hearing was denied.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 80P,Section 143(2),Section 144,Section 144B,Section 270A

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, ‘C’ BENCH, CHENNAI

Before: SHRI S.S. VISWANETHRA RAVI, HON’BLE & SHRI S. R. RAGHUNATHA, HON’BLE

Hearing: 22.07.2024Pronounced: 26.07.2024

आदेश /O R D E R

PER S. R. RAGHUNATHA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER:

1.

These appeals by the assessee are filed against the separate orders of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi, for the assessment years 2018-19 & 2020-21, vide orders dated 10.05.2024, 14.05.2024, 10.05.2024 & 13.05.2024, respectively. Since, facts are identical and issues are :-2-: 1528 to 1531/Chny/2024 common, for the sake of convenience, these appeals were heard together and are being disposed off, by this consolidated order.

2.

The brief facts are that, the assessee is a Primary Agricultural Co-operative Credit Society registered under Tamilnadu Co-operative Societies Act. The assessee filed return of income for both the assessment years 2018-19 and 2020-21 and declaring total income of Rs. Nil, after claiming deduction u/s. 80P of the Act at Rs.30,92,089/- and Rs. 71,43,476/- respectively. Subsequently, the case was selected for scrutiny under CASS for the reason investment/advance/loans and deduction from total income under Chapter VI-A, and notice u/s. 143(2) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act”) was issued and served on the assessee. However, the assessee did not submit any reply against the notes. Accordingly, the AO completed the assessment u/s.144 r.w.s. 144B dated 11.08.2021 and 25.09.2022 respectively, by denying the deduction claimed u/s. 80P of the Act for both the assessment years. Subsequently, the AO has passed penalty orders for both the assessment years 2018-19 and 2020-21 by levying penalty

:-3-: 1528 to 1531/Chny/2024 u/s. 270A of the Act of Rs.15,24,662/- and Rs.8,86,896/- respectively,. Aggrieved by the orders of the AO, assessee preferred an appeals before the ld.CIT(A).

3.

Before the ld.CIT(A), the assessee filed its appeals with a delay. The assessee has submitted the condonation petition at the time of filing Form No. 35 stating that the appeals have been after the time limit prescribed for filing the appeal. The assessee submitted Hon’ble Supreme Court vide order under Article 142 r.w. Article 141 of the Constitution of India dated 23.03.2020 read order with dated 10.01.2022, extended the period of imitation for all petitions/applications/suits/appeal/all other proceedings prescribed under the general law of limitation or under special laws w.e.f. 15.03.2020 till 28.02.2022. Further, it allowed 90 days limitation period for filing appeal from 01.03.2022. Therefore, the delay up to 29.05.2022 need not be taken into account for limitation purpose. For the remaining period of delay, the assessee has submitted that its authorized representative was demised on 16.05.2019, due to which the assessee was unable to get proper professional guidance, which resulted in delay in filing of appeals.

:-4-: 1528 to 1531/Chny/2024

4.

The ld.CIT(A) after considering the submissions made by the assessee held that the assessee has failed to establish sufficient cause for delay in filing of appeals and rejected the petition for condonation of delay and dismissed the appeals filed by the assessee without adjudicating on merits.

5.

The ld.AR stated that, the ld.CIT(A) appeals erred in dismissing the appeal without condoning the delay in all the four appeals, inspite of ‘reasonable cause’ shown for delay in filing. The ld.AR stated that the assessee has not given any opportunity to submit written submissions and for hearing the appeals and thus, the orders of the ld.CIT(A) may be set aside.

6.

Per contra, the ld.DR supported the orders of the ld.CIT(A).

7.

We have heard both the parties and gone through the order of the ld.CIT(A). It is noted that the ld.CIT(A) has passed the impugned orders based on issue of condonation of delay in filing the appeals, without providing any opportunity for hearing the assessee. Therefore, we are of the view that, to meet the ends of justice, we remit back the appeals to the file of the ld.

:-5-: 1528 to 1531/Chny/2024 CIT(A) for denovo adjudication on merit subject to cost of Rs.5000/- per appeal, totalling to Rs.20,000/- for all four appeals, which shall be deposited by the assessee within 30 days from the date of receipt of this order to ‘Tamil Nadu State Legal Services Authority’ at Hon’ble High Court of Madras. The proof of the same will be furnished by the Assessee before Ld. CIT(A), who shall proceed for de novo assessment. Accordingly, all the four impugned orders are set aside and all the four appeals are restored back to the file of Ld.CIT(A) for fresh adjudication.

8.

In the result, all four appeals filed by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes.

More judgments on Section 80P

All 5,069 judgments and leading authorities on Section 80P →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →