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, PUNE BENCH “SMC”, PUNE
Before: SHRI INTURI RAMA RAO & MS. ASTHA CHANDRA
आदेश / ORDER
PER INTURI RAMA RAO, AM:
This is an appeal filed by the appellant society directed against the order of Addl/JCIT(A)-2, Delhi, dated 14.03.2024 for the assessment year 2018-19.
Briefly the facts of the case are as under : The appellant is a Cooperative Society engaged in the business of receiving deposits from its Members and providing credit facilities to its Members. The appellant society filed the Return of Income for the A.Y. 2018-19 on 15.09.2018 declaring Nil income after claiming deduction of Rs.21,10,184/- u/s.80P of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter also called ‘the Act’). The said return of income was processed u/s.143(1) vide intimation dated 09.08.2019 by the CPC, Bengaluru denying the claim for deduction u/s.80P.
Being aggrieved, an appeal was filed before the Addl./JCIT(A) with a delay of five years. The appellant society filed a petition before the Addl./JCIT(A) praying for condonation of delay on the ground that the appellant society was not aware of the intimation dated 09.08.2019 issued u/s.143(1), as it was served through e-mail and the appellant society is not in the habit of checking the e-mails on regular basis. It was submitted that it was only when the refund due for the A.Y. 2022- 23 was adjusted against the demand for the A.Y. 2018-19 the appellant society had the knowledge of the said intimation. Thus, it is prayed that the delay in filing the appeal be condoned. However, the ld. Addl./JCIT(A) felt that there was no sufficient and reasonable cause for not filing the appeal in time and the appellant society was held to be guilty of lapses and negligence. In the circumstances, the ld. Addl./JCIT(A) had not condoned the delay.
Being aggrieved, the appellant society is in appeal before us in the present appeal.
The ld. Authorised Representative submits that in view of the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Collector of Land Acquisition, Anantnag and Anr Vs. MST Katiji & Ors (1987) 2 SCC 107 and since the appellant society has a strong prima-facie case on merits, the delay should be condoned. He further submits that there is no reason as to why the benefit of deduction u/s.80P was denied by the CPC.
On the other hand, the ld. Sr. DR had severely opposed the submissions made on behalf of the appellant society and submits that no interference by Tribunal is warranted.
We heard the rival submissions and perused the material on record. The moot question before us is, whether in the facts and Addl./JCIT(A) was justified in refusing to condone the delay in filing the appeal before him dismissing it as barred by limitation. The appellant society had filed an application seeking the condonation of delay. It was averred in the said application that the appellant society had no knowledge of the intimation dated 09.08.2019 issued u/s.143(1) till 20.10.2022 when the refund due for the A.Y. 2022-23 was adjusted against the demand due for the A.Y. 2018-19. It was only after ascertaining the reasons for non-receipt of the refund for the A.Y. 2022-23, the appellant could found out through his Chartered Accountant Mr. V.S. Jadhav that intimation for the A.Y. 2018-19 was issued on 09.08.2019 denying the grant of deduction u/s.80P of the Act. Then, the Chartered Accountant initiated steps for filing the appeal on 06.09.2023. It was further averred that Chartered Accountant was not in the habit of checking the e-mails regularly. However, the ld. Addl/JCIT(A) disbelieved the above explanation by holding that it is quite unbelievable that Authorized Representative did not check the e-mails for four years and the intimation is also sent on registered Mobile number through SMS. The appellant society is in appeal before us challenging the correctness and the reasonableness of the finding of the Addl/JCIT(A). In this connection, it is very apt to refer to the recent decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Pathapati Subba Reddy (died) by Lrs. & Ors vs. The Special Deputy Collector (LA) in Special Leave Petition (Civil) No. 31248/2018, dated 08.04.2024 wherein the Hon’ble Supreme Court after making reference to the decisions in the case of (1) Bhag Mal alias Ram Bux and Ors. vs. Munshi (Dead) by LRs. and Ors. (2) Collector, Land Acquisition, Anantnag and Ors. vs. Katiji and Ors, (3) Ramlal, Motilal and Chhotelal vs. Rewa Coalfields Ltd, (4) Maqbul Ahmad and Ors. vs. Onkar Pratap Narain Singh and Ors. (5) Brijesh Kumar and Ors. vs. State of Haryana and Ors, (6) Lanka Venkateswarlu vs. State of Andhra Pradesh & Ors. (7) State of Jharkhand & Ors. vs. Ashok Kumar
Chokhani & Ors, (8) Basawaraj and Anr. vs. Special Land Acquisition Officer, had evolved the following guidelines for condonation of delay :
“26. On a harmonious consideration of the provisions of the law, as aforesaid, and the law laid down by this Court, it is evident that: (i) Law of limitation is based upon public policy that there should be an end to litigation by forfeiting the right to remedy rather than the right itself; (ii) A right or the remedy that has not been exercised or availed of for a long time must come to an end or cease to exist after a fixed period of time; (iii) The provisions of the Limitation Act have to be construed differently, such as Section 3 has to be construed in a strict sense whereas Section 5 has to be construed liberally; (iv) In order to advance substantial justice, though liberal approach, justice-oriented approach or cause of substantial justice may be kept in mind but the same cannot be used to defeat the substantial law of limitation contained in Section 3 of the Limitation Act; (v) Courts are empowered to exercise discretion to condone the delay if sufficient cause had been explained, but that exercise of power is discretionary in nature and may not be exercised even if sufficient cause is established for various factors such as, where there is inordinate delay, negligence and want of due diligence; (vi) Merely some persons obtained relief in similar matter, it does not mean that others are also entitled to the same benefit if the court is not satisfied with the cause shown for the delay in filing the appeal; (vii) Merits of the case are not required to be considered in condoning the delay; and (viii) Delay condonation application has to be decided on the parameters laid down for condoning the delay and condoning the delay for the reason that the conditions have been imposed, tantamounts to disregarding the statutory provision.”
In view of the above legal position, we now proceed to examine the facts of the case in order to determine whether there is sufficient and reasonable cause in not filing appeal before the CIT(A) within the prescribed time. The explanation that the appellant society had no knowledge of the intimation u/s.143(1) issued on 09.08.2019 till the processing of the refund for the A.Y. 2022-23 is difficult to be believed, as it cannot be presumed that a professional like a Chartered Accountant is not in the habit of checking the e-mails on regular basis. Moreover, the CPC also sent the intimation on Mobile number through SMS. These facts only show that the appellant society is not diligent in pursuing the remedy available under law. The law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Collector of Land Acquisition, Anantnag and Anr Vs. MST Katiji & Ors (supra) had been diluted by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Pathapati Subba Reddy (died) by Lrs. & Ors vs. The Special Deputy Collector (LA) (supra) wherein it is held that while considering the petition for condonation of delay, the merits of the case are not required to be considered in condoning the delay. Therefore, there is apparently no diligence on the part of the appellant society in pursuing the remedy. In our considered opinion, the Addl./JCIT(A) is justified in refusing to condone the delay in filing the appeal. Thus, the appeal filed by the appellant society is devoid of any merit, accordingly stands dismissed.
In the result, the appeal filed by the appellant society is dismissed.
Order pronounced on this 06th day of August, 2024.