CHAVAKKAD P C A R D BANK LIMITED,GURUVAYUR V. ITO, WARD-1 & TPS, THRISSUR

ITA 621/COCH/2024

AI Insights

The case involves Chavakkad PCARD Bank Ltd., a primary agricultural co-operative society, which appealed against the orders of the National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi, for the Assessment Year 2020-21. The society had claimed a deduction under section 80P(2)(i)(a) of the Income Tax Act, which was disallowed by the Assessing Officer on the grounds that the assessee was a co-operative bank, not a co-operative society. The CIT(A) initially refused to condone the significant delay in filing the appeal, which led to the current appeal before the Tribunal. The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) had not adequately justified the refusal to condone the delay and remanded the case for a fresh decision on this procedural issue.

• Counselvise Citation: [2024] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 471666 (ITAT-COCHIN)
• Duration Of Justice: 4 month(s) 15 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 18-11-2024
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: DB
• Assessment Year: 2020-2021
• Appeal Filed On: 03-07-2024
• Other Referred Cases: Pathapati Subba Reddy (died) by Lrs. & Ors vs. The Special Deputy Collector (LA)
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act, 1961, Kerala Co-operative Societies Act, 1961
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: LEENA LAL
• Keywords: Condonation of delay; Set aside
• Section: 143(3); 80P

Judgement Text

"IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL COCHIN BENCH, COCHIN Before Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Accountant Member ITA Nos. 621 & 622/Coch/2024 (Assessment Year: 2020-21) Chavakkad PCARD Bank Ltd. Sree Chakra Arcade Guruvayur S.O. Thrissur 680101 [PAN: AABAC5928P] vs. The Income Tax Officer-1 & TPS City Plaza, Muthuravattor- Guruvayur Road, West Nada Guruvayur 680101 (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant by: ------- None ------- Respondent by: Smt. Leena Lal, Sr. D.R. Date of Hearing: 29.10.2024 Date of Pronouncement: 18.11.2024 O R D E R These appeals filed by the assessee are directed against the orders of the National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi [CIT(A)] dated 16.11.2023 for Assessment Year (AY) 2020-21. 2. Brief facts of the case are that the assessee is a primary agricultural co- operative society registered under the provisions of the Kerala Co-operative Societies Act, 1961, formed with the object of accepting deposits from its members and providing credit facilities to members. The return of income for AY 2020-21 was filed on 15.02.2021 after claiming deduction of Rs.20,55,703/- u/s. 80P(2)(i)(a) of the Act. Against the said return of income, the Assessing Officer (AO) completed the assessment at an income of Rs.20.05.703/- vide order u/s. 143(3) r.w.s. 144B of the 2 ITA Nos. 621 & 622/Coch/2024 Chavakkad PCARD Bank Ltd. Income Tax Act, 1961 (the Act) dated 05.09.2022 by disallowing the claim for deduction u/s. 80P of the Act by holding that the assessee is not a co-operative society but a co-operative bank. 3. Being aggrieved, an appeal was filed before the CIT(A) with a delay of 385 days. The assessee filed petition praying for condonation of delay by stating that the delay has occurred on account of wrong advice given by the counsel of the assessee. However, the CIT(A) refused to condone the delay of 385 days by giving a finding that the se has not filed cogent reasons for such huge delay. 4. Being aggrieved, the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal. When the appeal was called nobody attended despite due service of notice of hearing. Therefore after hearing the learned Sr. DR, I proceeded to dispose of the appeal as under. 5. The learned Sr. DR submits that no interference is called for in the impugned order. 6. I heard the learned Sr. DR and perused the material on record. The issue in the present appeal is whether or not the CIT(A) is justified in refusing to condone the delay of 385 days. From a perusal of the order of the CIT(A) it would be apparent that the CIT(A) was merely swayed by the fact of the length of delay which should not be consideration as held by the 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. 31248/2918 dated 08.04.2024 because the CIT(A) was not justified in refusing to condone delay. Therefore, I set aside the order of the CIT(A) with a direction to dispose of the petition for condonation of delay on merits by giving cogent reasons. Accordingly the appeal is remanded back to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication in accordance with law. 3 ITA Nos. 621 & 622/Coch/2024 Chavakkad PCARD Bank Ltd. 7. Since the quantum appeal is remanded back to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication, the penalty appeal in ITA No. 622/Coch/2024 is also restored to the file of the CIT(A). 8. In the result, both appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced in the open court on 18th November, 2024 Sd/- (Inturi Rama Rao) Accountant Member Cochin, Dated: 18th November, 2024 n.p. Copy to: 1. The Appellant 2. The Respondent 3. The Pr. CIT concerned 4. The Sr. DR, ITAT, Cochin 5. Guard File By Order Assistant Registrar ITAT, Cochin "