ADIWASI DUDHG UTPADAK KRISHI PURAK SANGH,NNDURBAR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1, DHULE , DHULE

PDF · subscribers
ITA 413/PUN/2024Status: DisposedITAT Pune17 April 2024AY 2021-22Bench: SHRI SATBEER SINGH GODARA (Judicial Member)4 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 delay in filing the return was not a rectifiable mistake under Section 154 of the Act and required detailed adjudication. Therefore, the appeal was rejected.

What were the facts?

The assessee filed its return of income for AY 2021-22 with a delay of 237 days. The assessee sought condonation of this delay and claimed deduction under Section 80P.

What were the issues?

Whether a significant delay in filing the return of income can be condoned as a rectifiable mistake, and if so, whether the deduction under Section 80P is still admissible.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 143(1),Section 139(1),Section 154,Section 80P

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Cases cited in this judgment(1)Show list

Detected automatically from the text. Citations are also linked where they appear in the judgment. The count shows how many other judgments on BharatTax rely on the same authority.

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

Before: SHRI SATBEER SINGH GODARA

Hearing: 22.03.2024Pronounced: 17.04.2024

ORDER PER SATBEER SINGH GODARA, J.M. : This assessee’s appeal for assessment year 2021-22, arises against the Addl./JCIT(A)-1, Bengaluru, Bengaluru’s Din and Order No. ITBA/APL/S/250/2023-24/1060348206(1), dated 31.01.2024, involving proceedings u/s.143(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short “the Act”).

Case called twice. None appears at assessee’s behest. It is accordingly proceeded ex-parte.

2.

The assessee pleads the following substantive grounds in the instant appeal :

1.

“The ADDL/JCIT (A)-1 erred in not condoning the delay in filing the Return of Income which was due to the then prevailing Corona (Covid-19) Atmoshphere. [Rs.4,05,390/-]

1.

2 ITA.No.413/PUN./2024 2. The ADDL/JCIT (A)-1 should have allowed the deduction under Section 80P available for the Co-operative society considering the fact that the Assessee is eligible for the deduction notwithstanding delay in filing the return of Income. [Rs.4,05,390/-]. 3. The Appellant craves leave to add, substitute, amend, delete any of the grounds of appeal.”

3.

The Learned DR invited my attention to the impugned lower appeal discussion reading as under :

3 ITA.No.413/PUN./2024

4.

I have gone through the assessee’s pleadings and heard the Learned DR’s vehement submissions supporting the impugned sec.80P deduction disallowance(s). It emerges from perusal of the case file that the assessee had not submitted it’s return u/sec.139(1) of the Act within the “due” date. Lower appellate discussion to this effect in para-7.6 hereinabove has given a categorical finding that the assessee had filed it’s return on 07.11.2022 suffering from 237 days delay. That being the clinching fact, this tribunal is of the opinion that the same could not be taken as a rectifiable mistake u/sec.154 of the Act since requiring detailed adjudication in light of T S Balram, ITO vs. Volkart Bros. [1971] 82 ITR 50 (SC). I thus reject the assessee’s instant appeal in very terms with liberty to take recourse to appropriate remedy(ies) of filing regular appeal as per law, if so advised. Ordered accordingly.

4 ITA.No.413/PUN./2024 5. This assessee’s appeal is dismissed in above terms.

Order pronounced in the open Court on 17.04.2024.

More judgments on Section 139(1)

All 8,117 judgments and leading authorities on Section 139(1) →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →