ARTHAKALASH MAGASVARGIYA KARMACHARI SAHAKARI PATH SWANSTHA LIMITED,DHAMANGAON V. ITO WARD-1, AMRAVATI

ITA 756/NAG/2025

AI Insights

The case involves Arthakalash Magasvargiya Karmachari Sahakari Path Swanstha Limited, a cooperative credit society, which appealed against the order of the Ld. Addl/JCIT(A) that dismissed their appeal due to a significant delay in filing. The original dispute arose from the disallowance of a deduction claimed under section 80P(2)(a)(i) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, amounting to Rs.10,28,804. The assessee argued that the delay was unintentional, caused by the receipt of intimation via email rather than physically, and the lack of technological familiarity among its rural-based managerial staff. The Tribunal found merit in the assessee's arguments, noting that similar deductions had been allowed in other years and that a rectification application was still pending.

• Counselvise Citation: [2026] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 838120 (ITAT-NAGPUR)
• Duration Of Justice: 2 month(s) 7 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 19-02-2026
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: SMC
• Assessment Year: 2020-2021
• Appeal Filed On: 12-12-2025
• Other Referred Cases: Collector, Land Acquisition vs. Mst. Katiji & Ors., Inder Singh Vs. The State of Madhya Pradesh
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act, 1961
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: SURJIT KUMAR SAHA
• Assessee Lawyers: HIMESH DEMBLE
• Keywords: Opportunity of being heard; Co-operative Credit Society
• Section: 154; 234B

Judgement Text

" IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL NAGPUR BENCH “SMC”, (VIRTUAL HEARING : AT PUNE) BEFORE SHRI R. K. PANDA, VICE PRESIDENT ITA No.756/NAG/2025 Assessment Year : 2020-21 Arthakalash Magasvargiya Karmachari Sahakari Path Swanstha Limited Matoshri Laxmi Heights, Opp. Shefla High School, Anjansingh Road, Juna Dhamangaon, B.O. Dattapur – 444709 Vs. ITO, Ward-1, Amravati PAN : AAEAA1852F (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee by : Shri Himesh Demble (through virtual) Department by : Shri Surjit Kumar Saha Sr.DR (through virtual) Date of hearing : 05-02-2026 Date of pronouncement : 19-02-2026 O R D E R PER R. K. PANDA, VP : This appeal filed by the assessee is directed against the order dated 30.10.2025 of the Ld. Addl/JCIT(A)-1, Visakhapatnam, relating to assessment year 2020-21. 2. Facts of the case, in brief, are that the assessee is a co-operative credit society and filed its return of income on 15.02.2021 declaring total income at Nil after claiming deduction u/s 80P(2)(a)(i) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) to the tune of Rs.10,28,804/-. The CPC disallowed the Printed from counselvise.com 2 ITA No.756/NAG/2025 exemption claimed u/s 80P of the Act. The assessee filed a rectification application u/s 154 of the Act. However, no action or further communication was received from the authorities. The assessee, therefore, filed an appeal before the Ld. Addl/JCIT(A). However, the Ld. Addl/JCIT(A) dismissed the appeal on account of delay in filing of the same by observing as under: Printed from counselvise.com 3 ITA No.756/NAG/2025 3. Aggrieved with such order of the Ld. Addl/JCIT(A), the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal by raising the following grounds: 1. That, in the facts and circumstances of the case, the order framed by the Hon'ble Ld. CIT(A) is illegal, unjustified and bad in law. 2. That, in the facts and circumstances of the case, the disallowance of Rs.10,28,804/- u/s 80P(2)(a)(i) of the I.T. Act, 1961 is unwarranted and without any basis. 3. That, in the facts and circumstances of the case, the assessee ought to have been provided the deduction u/s 80P(2)(a)(i) of the I.T. Act, 1961 as the return is filed within extended due date due to Covid-19 Pandemic. 4. That, in the facts and circumstances of the case, the Hon'ble Ld. CIT(A) failed to adjudicate the case on merits and has merely rejected the appeal without allowing the condonation of delay. 5. That, in the facts and circumstances of the case, the Hon'ble Ld. CIT(A) ought to have remanded the case back to the file of Ld. A.O. 6. That, in the facts and circumstances of the case, the assessee denies the liability to pay interest u/s 234A, 234B and 234C of the I.T. Act, 1961. 7. The Assessee craves leave to, add to alter, amend, modify, substitute, delete and/or rescind any of the ground/grounds of the appeal on or before the final hearing of the appeal. 4. The Ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted that the intimation received by the assessee was through email and it was not received physically. He submitted that the secretary and other managerial persons of the assessee society are staying in rural area and are not well conversant with latest technology. Further, the 154 rectification petition filed has not yet been decided, therefore, there were some bonafide reasons for delay in filing of the appeal before the Ld. Addl/JCIT(A). He submitted that no disallowance has been made either in the preceding years or in the subsequent years. Relying on various decisions including the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Collector, Land Acquisition vs. Mst. Katiji Printed from counselvise.com 4 ITA No.756/NAG/2025 & Ors. reported in 167 ITR 471 (SC) and Inder Singh Vs. The State of Madhya Pradesh reported in 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 339, he submitted that the delay in filing of the appeal should be condoned and the appeal be decided on merit. 5. The Ld. DR on the other hand strongly relied on the order of the Ld. Addl/JCIT(A). He submitted that since there is no justifiable reasons in filing of the appeal with such huge delay, therefore, the Ld. Addl/JCIT(A) was justified in dismissing the appeal on account of delay in filing of the same. 6. I have heard the rival arguments made by both the sides and perused the orders of the AO / CPC and the Ld. Addl/JCIT(A) and the paper book filed on behalf of the assessee. I have also considered the various decisions cited before me. It is an admitted fact that the assessee filed the return of income on 23.12.2020 and the intimation u/s 143(1) of the Act was passed on 23.12.2021. The assessee filed the appeal before the Ld. Addl/JCIT(A) on 16.05.2025 with a delay of about 1211 days which was dismissed by the Ld. Addl/JCIT(A) on account of delay. It is the submission of the Ld. Counsel for the assessee that the intimation was not physically received but was received through email and since the managerial persons are not well conversant with the technology, therefore, the said intimation remained to be noticed. However, when the assessee came to know of the intimation, it filed a rectification application before the jurisdictional Assessing Officer which is still pending. Left with no other option, the assessee filed an appeal with a delay of about 1211 days before the Ld. Addl/JCIT(A). It is Printed from counselvise.com 5 ITA No.756/NAG/2025 also his submission that in the preceding and subsequent assessment years the claim of deduction u/s 80P of the Act has been allowed and no disallowance was made. 7. I find some force in the above arguments of the Ld. Counsel for the assessee. A perusal of the details furnished by the assessee shows that the intimation was issued through email on 23.12.2021 and no physical intimation was sent to the assessee. Further the submission of the Ld. Counsel for the assessee that in the preceding and subsequent assessment years no such disallowance has been made could not be controverted by the Ld. DR. It is also an admitted fact that after the intimation was received the assessee has filed a rectification application u/s 154 of the Act before the jurisdictional Assessing Officer which is still pending and therefore, it cannot be said that the assessee was defiant or callous or the delay in filing of the appeal was deliberate. 8. I find the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Collector, Land Acquisition vs. Mst. Katiji & Ors. (supra) has held that when substantial justice and technical considerations are pitted against each other, cause of substantial justice deserves to be preferred for the other side cannot claim to have vested right in injustice being done because of a non-deliberate delay. Refusing to condone delay can result in a meritorious matter being thrown out at the very threshold and cause of justice being defeated. As against this when delay is condoned the highest that can happen is that a cause would be decided on merits after hearing the parties. Printed from counselvise.com 6 ITA No.756/NAG/2025 9. I find recently the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Inder Singh Vs. The State of Madhya Pradesh reported in 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 339 has held as under: “14. There can be no quarrel on the settled principle of law that delay cannot be condoned without sufficient cause, but a major aspect which has to be kept in mind is that, if in a particular case, the merits have to be examined, it should not be scuttled merely on the basis of limitation.” 10. In the light of the above decisions of Hon’ble Supreme Court cited (supra), I deem it proper to restore the issue to the file of the Ld. Addl/JCIT(A) with a direction to condone the delay and decide the appeal on merit after giving due opportunity of being heard to the assessee. The assessee is also hereby directed to make its submissions, if any, on the appointed date without seeking any adjournment under any pretext failing which the Ld. Addl/JCIT(A) is at liberty to pass appropriate order as per law. I hold and direct accordingly. The grounds raised by the assessee are accordingly allowed for statistical purposes. 11. In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced in the open Court on 19th February, 2026. Sd/- (R. K. PANDA) VICE PRESIDENT पुणे Pune; दिन ांक Dated : 19th February, 2026 GCVSR Printed from counselvise.com 7 ITA No.756/NAG/2025 आदेश की प्रतितिति अग्रेतिि/Copy of the Order is forwarded to: 1. अपील र्थी / The Appellant; 2. प्रत्यर्थी / The Respondent 3. 4. The concerned Pr.CIT, Nagpur DR, ITAT, ‘SMC’ Bench, Nagpur 5. ग र्ड फ ईल / Guard file. आदेशानुसार/ BY ORDER, // True Copy // Assistant Registrar आयकर अपीलीय अदिकरण ,पुणे / ITAT, Pune S.No. Details Date Initials Designation 1 Draft dictated on 09.02.2026 Sr. PS/PS 2 Draft placed before author 10.02.2026 Sr. PS/PS 3 Draft proposed & placed before the Second Member JM/AM 4 Draft discussed/approved by Second Member AM/AM 5 Approved Draft comes to the Sr. PS/PS Sr. PS/PS 6 Kept for pronouncement on Sr. PS/PS 7 Date of uploading of Order Sr. PS/PS 8 File sent to Bench Clerk Sr. PS/PS 9 Date on which the file goes to the Office Superintendent 10 Date on which file goes to the A.R. 11 Date of Dispatch of order Printed from counselvise.com "