Loading judgment…
No AI summary yet for this case.
Detected automatically from the text. The count shows how many other judgments on BharatTax rely on the same authority.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, COCHIN BENCH, COCHIN
Before: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Amarjit Singh
Appellant by: ------- None ------- Respondent by: Smt. Swarnalatha, Sr. D.R. Date of Hearing: 12.08.2024 Date of Pronouncement: 25.09.2024 O R D E R Per Bench These assessee’s twin appeals & 335/Coch/2023, for assessment years 2009-10 & 2012-13, arise against separate orders of the National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi [CIT(A)] dated 15.02.2023 and 13.12.2023, in proceedings u/s. 144 r.w.s. 147 and s. 271B of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter "the Act"), respectively.
Cases called twice. None appears at assessee’s behest. It is accordingly proceed ex-parte.
It emerges at the outset that there are very few relevant facts to be taken note of whilst deciding the assessee’s sole substantive grievance claiming s. 80P deduction in ITA No.334/Coch/2923. This is for the precise reason that both the lower authorities have rejected assessee’s claim amounting to Rs.22,56,349/- for having not & 335/Coch/2023 Adat Farmers Service Co-op. Bank Ltd. raised it in a “return” in light of s. 80A(5) of the Act. A perusal of the case file suggests that the assessee claims to have filed its return (with deduction) on 06.12.2016 whereas the Assessing Officer had framed his assessment on 25.11.2016 very well before that. That being the case, we conclude that both the learned lower authorities have rightly invoked s.80A(5) of the Act for the purpose of rejecting assessee’s 80P deduction in ITA No.334/Coch/2023. Rejected accordingly.
Delay of 23 days in filing the instant appeal stands condoned in light of the assessee’s condonation averments in light of Collector, Land Acquisition vs., MST Katiji [1987] 167 ITR 471 (SC) having settled the law long back that all such technical aspects must make a way for the cause of substantial justice.
3. Next comes assessee’s latter appeal in seeking to reverse both the lower authorities’ action levying s. 271B penalty of Rs.1,50,000/- on account of its failure to submit audit report within the prescribed ‘due date’ u/s. 139(1) of the Act. We notice in this factual matter that the assessee had filed its audit report manually in August, 2019. It had all along claimed that the delay was on account of the fact that it was awaiting the corresponding audit report from the state government department, which has gone un-rebutted by the department. That being the case, we delete the impugned s. 271B penalty since there exists a “reasonable” cause u/s. 273B as the delay was attributed to the state government department(s) relating to the co-operative societies. The impugned penalty is directed to be deleted.
Delay of 25 days in filing the instant appeal stands condoned in light of the assessee’s condonation averments in light of Collector, Land Acquisition vs., MST Katiji [1987] 167 ITR 471 (SC) having settled the law long back that all such technical aspects must make a way for the cause of substantial justice. stands allowed in above terms. A copy of this common order be placed in the respective case files. Order pronounced in the open court on 25th September, 2024.