MEGHALAYA CO-OP. APEX BANK LIMITED,SHILLONG vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-SHILLONG, SHILLONG

Present for: Appellant by : Shri Parthasarathi Choudhury, FCA Respondent by : Shri N. T. Sherpa, JCIT Date of Hearing : 26.07.2022 Date of Pronouncement : 10.08.2022 O R D E R

PER SONJOY SARMA, JUDICIAL MEMBER:

1. Revocation of the Learned CIT(A)'s order in rejecting the condonation of delay. The Appellant prays for considering the condonation of delay which was denied by the Learned CIT(A) in appeal filed u/s 246A on 22/05/2018 vide order u/s 250/251 dated 28/11/2018 and admit the appeal now before the Hon'ble Tribunal. The Learned CIT(A) without giving any consideration to the merit of the case and existence of sufficient cause, denied condonation of delay in filing an appeal against order u/s 143(3)/263 after 522 days. The Learned CIT(A) did not consider the facts that during the intervening period of 522 days between the assessment order u/s 143(3)/263 dated 15/11/2016 and filing of appeal 2 Meghalaya Co-op Apex Bank Ltd., AY 2011-12 u/s 246A on that Assessment order, on 22/05/2018, the Appellant had engaged itself thus: Before: i) The A.O. with rectification petition u/s 154 on the order u/s 143(3)/263 on 19/12/2016, which was rejected by the A.O. on 27/03/2017. ii) Learned CIT(A})u/s 246A on 05/04/2017 on the order u/s 154 as rejected on 27/03/2017 . iii) The Learned CIT(A) rejected the above appeal u/s 250 on 03/05/2018. iv) Finally again before Learned CIT(A) against the order u/s 143(3)/263 after the Learned CIT(A) dismissed the appeal filed against order u/s 154 as referred to ( iii) above.

2. Wrong method of calculation adopted in following rule 8D for the purpose of Section 14A as prevalent during the assessment year 2011-12. The Learned A.O. erred in law by effecting a wrong method of calculation of disallowance u/s 14A other than the stipulated method under Rule 8D of the I.T. Rules. Instead of considering only that part of investment, income from which is exempt from tax, he went on to apply the rule 8D (2)(iii), on the whole of the investments as appearing in the Balance Sheet, i.e., investments, income from which is free of income tax and also income that are subject to income tax as appearing in Schedule 11 of the statement of accounts. The Appellant prays that justice be meted out by adopting the correct calculation.

3. The Appellant prays to add, alter modify, clarity and/or withdraw the ground/s as the occasion may demand.”

5. Moreover, the Ld. AR submitted that the delay of 522 days arose in filing the appeal because during the intervening period the assessee had taken steps by initiating the provisions of section 154 of the Act and thereafter the assessee had filed separate appeal before the Ld. CIT(A) on the same ground and as such delay was happened 552 days in filing the appeal before the Ld. CIT(A) against the original order dated 15.11.2016 passed by the AO. He further submitted that the delay was not willful or deliberate on the part of the appellant/assessee and considering the circumstances of the case, and ends of justice one more opportunity should be given to the assessee by condoning the delay and direction may be issued to Ld. CIT(A) to decide the appeal on merit of the case. The Ld. AR in support of the above facts filed an affidavit dated 06.07.2022 before this Tribunal stating the facts by which delay was happened in filing the appeal before the Ld. CIT(A), we have also perused the same. On the other hand, the Ld. DR relied on the orders of the authorities below.