PARAG NAGARI SAHAKARI PATSANSTHA MARYADIT,PUNE vs. ITO, WARD 10(1), PUNE, PUNE

PDF · subscribers
ITA 1106/PUN/2024Status: DisposedITAT Pune12 August 2024AY 2019-20Bench: SHRI INTURI RAMA RAO (Accountant Member)3 pages

In favour of the Revenue: the assessee's appeal was dismissed. From the AI summary of this appeal.

AI SummaryDismissed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A)/NFAC was justified in refusing to condone the delay as the assessee failed to provide a sufficient cause for the substantial delay in filing the appeal.

What were the facts?

The assessee, a cooperative credit society, claimed a deduction under Section 80P(2)(f) which was disallowed by the CPC during processing. The appeal filed before the CIT(A)/NFAC was significantly delayed.

What were the issues?

Whether the CIT(A)/NFAC was justified in refusing to condone the delay in filing the appeal. Whether a sufficient cause was shown by the assessee for the delay.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 80P(2)(f),Section 143(1)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, PUNE BENCH “SMC”, PUNE

Before: SHRI INTURI RAMA RAO

For Appellant: Shri Abhay A. Avachat
For Respondent: Shri Satyajit Mandal
Hearing: 12.08.2024Pronounced: 12.08.2024

आदेश / ORDER

PER INTURI RAMA RAO, AM:

1.

This is an appeal filed by the assessee directed against the order of National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi dated 04.03.2024 for the assessment year 2019-20.

2.

Brief facts of the case are as under :

The appellant is a Cooperative Credit Society registered under the Maharashtra Cooperative Societies Act, 1960. It is engaged in the business of providing credit facilities to its Members and also accepting the deposits from Members. The Return of Income for the A.Y. 2019- 20 was filed on 20.09.2019 declaring Nil income after claiming deduction of Rs.48,67,901/- u/s.80P(2)(f) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter also called ‘the Act’). The said return of income was processed by the CPC vide intimation dated 02.12.2020 passed u/s.143(1) of the Act at a total income of Rs.19,10,480/- by disallowing the claim for deduction u/s.80P(2)(f) of the Act.

3.

Being aggrieved, an appeal was filed before the CIT(A)/NFAC with a delay of more than two years. The CIT(A)/NFAC without condoning the delay had dismissed the appeal in limine. The CIT(A)/NFAC rejected the contention of the appellant society that the intimation u/s.143(1) was not served on the appellant by holding that the appellant itself had stated in Form No.35 that said intimation was served on 10.12.2020.

4.

Being aggrieved, the appellant is in appeal before the Tribunal.

5.

I heard the rival submissions and carefully perused the material on record. The only issue that arises for my consideration in the present appeal is whether the CIT(A)/NFAC was justified in refusing to condone the delay. Admittedly, as per the information available in Form No,35, the intimation passed u/s.143(1) dated 02.12.2020 was served upon the appellant society on 10.12.2020 whereas the appeal before NFAC was filed on 27.11.2023. Even after excluding the period covered by pandemic Covid-19, still there is a delay of about 18 months from June, 2022 till the date of filing the appeal, i.e.27.11.2023. No explanation was given as to what prevented the appellant society to file an appeal within the time prescribed. Thus, sufficient cause is not shown by the appellant society for not filing the appeal within the time. In the circumstances, the ld. CIT(A)/NFAC was justified in refusing to condone the delay. I uphold the action of the CIT(A)/NFAC.

6.

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed.

Order pronounced on this 12th day of August, 2024.

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →