GURUMALLESHWARA PADAVLDHARARA PATHINA SAHAKARA SANGHA NIYAMITHA ,MYSORE V. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1(1), MYSORE

ITA 1077/BANG/2025

AI Insights

The case involves Shri Gurumalleshwara Padhavidharara Pathina Sahakara Sangha Niyamitha, a society registered under the cooperative societies registration act, which appealed against the order of the CIT(A) dismissing their appeal for not condoning a delay of 810 days in contesting an adjustment under section 143(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961. The adjustment denied a deduction of \\u20b9 1,569,743 under section 80P of the Act. The Tribunal considered the circumstances leading to the delay, including professional advice and technical issues with the income tax portal, and decided to allow the appeal for statistical purposes, emphasizing the need to address the matter on its merits.

• Counselvise Citation: [2025] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 777376 (ITAT-BANGALORE)
• Duration Of Justice: 4 month(s) 20 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 29-09-2025
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: SMC
• Assessment Year: 2019-2020
• Appeal Filed On: 09-05-2025
• Other Referred Cases: ITA No. 95/Cochin/2023
• Laws Referred To: Income-tax Act, 1961
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Assessee Lawyers: PRANAVA KRISHNA
• Keywords: Reasonable cause; Bonafide belief
• Section: 139

Judgement Text

" IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “SMC” BENCH : BANGALORE BEFORE SHRI PRASHANT MAHARISHI, VICE PRESIDENT ITA No.1077/Bang/2025 Assessment year : 2019-20 Shri Gurumalleshwara Padhavidharara Pathina Sahakara Sangha Niyamitha, No.26/2A, 16th Cross, Ramanuja Road, Mysore – 570 004. PAN: AAKAS 7051C Vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward 1(1), Mysore. APPELLANT RESPONDENT Appellant by : Shri Pranava Krishna, Advocate Respondent by : Shri Ganesh R. Ghale, Standing Counsel for the Revenue. Date of hearing : 23.09.2025 Date of Pronouncement : 29.09.2025 O R D E R 1. This appeal is filed by Shri Gurumalleshwara Padhavidharara Pathina Sahakara Sangha Niyamitha (the assessee/appellant) for the assessment year 2019-20 against the appellate order passed by the Addl/JCIT(A)- 12, Mumbai [ld. CIT(A)] dated 20.3.2025 wherein the appeal filed by the assessee against the order passed u/s. 143(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 [the Act] by the CPC dated 6.8.2020 was dismissed by not condoning the delay of 810 days. Printed from counselvise.com ITA No.1077/Bang/2025 Page 2 of 6 2. The assessee is aggrieved with the same and submitted that that the learned CIT – A is not correct in dismissing the appeal without condoning the delay. 3. Before us also the appeal is filed that the learned assessing officer has made an adjustment under section 143 (1) of the Act by denying the deduction of ₹ 1,569,743/– to the assessee under section 80P of the Act. 4. The fact shows that assessee is a society registered under the cooperative societies registration Act filing the return of income on 25/2/2020 u/s. 139 (4) of the Act declaring a total income of rupees Nil after claiming deduction under section 80P of the Act of ₹ 1,569,743/–. This return of income was processed by the Central Processing Centre under section 143(1) of the Act on 6/8/2020 determining the total income of the assessee at ₹ 1,569,740. 5. The assessee aggrieved with the intimation preferred an appeal before the learned CIT-A stating that out of the abundant caution the assessee has mentioned the date of receipt of the order as the date of intimation dated 6/8/2020. The appellant has also furnished the detailed reasons for filing the appeal late by 810 days. In the application for condonation of the delay, the assessee has submitted that the assessee was advised by the consultant that necessary representation application should be made before the learned assessing officer to allow the deduction under section 80P of the Act. The consultant collected all the details and prepared and application before the learned assessing Printed from counselvise.com ITA No.1077/Bang/2025 Page 3 of 6 officer requesting to rectify by granting deduction under section 80P of the Act. It was the belief of the assessee that the intimation is being attended to by the said authorised representative. After that there was a second surge in Covid 19 and the Karnataka State Government imposed complete lockdown from 27 April 2021 to June 2021. In view of this there was no action on the part of the assessee. Further as soon as the enquiry was made about the rectification application, it was stated by the consultant that he is pursuing the matter before the Department. Later on the President of the society approached the present counsel as it has come to know that there is an outstanding demand of ₹ 627,310 reflecting in the appellant’s income tax portal. The present counsel after going through the file and the online portal of the appellant, strongly advised to file an appeal with a request for condonation of delay. Accordingly due to the incorrect professional advice the appellant could not file the present appeal before the learned CIT – A during the time granted which has caused the delay of 810 days. It was further stated that the delay was also due to the continuous technical error on the income tax portal. The screenshot of the error was also submitted before the learned CIT – A along with the grievance raised by the assessee. In view of above it was stated that the delay may be condoned. The assessee further stated that in view of the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court the delay may also be considered sympathetically. However the delay was not condoned by the learned CIT – A as the assessee has not provided adequate justification for the delay of 810 days in filing the appeal excluding the Printed from counselvise.com ITA No.1077/Bang/2025 Page 4 of 6 Covid period. Therefore he held that there is no sufficient and reasonable cause to be considered for granting the condonation of the delay, accordingly the appeal of the assessee was dismissed. 6. On appeal before me, the learned authorised representative reiterated the same submission and stated that the learned CIT – A should have condone the delay. On the merits of the case he relied upon the decision of Cochin bench in ITA No. 95/Cochin/2023 for AY 2019-20 wherein on identical facts and circumstances the issue is decided in favour of the assessee and it has been held that while processing the return of income, the adjustment of denial of deduction under section 80P could not have been made. Therefore it was submitted that on merits the issue is covered in favour of the assessee. 7. The learned DR vehemently supported the orders of the learned CIT-A and stated that when the assessee has failed to disclose sufficient reason for filing the appeal late before the learned CIT – A by 810 days, the appeal of the assessee has correctly been dismissed. He submitted that when the appeal is not admitted by the learned CIT – A, the same could not have been looked into on merits. 8. We have carefully considered the rival contention and perused the orders of the learned lower authorities. It is the case of the assessee that assessee society has filed its return of income u/s. 139 (4) of the Act and has not filed any return of income u/s. 139 (1) of the Act. In the belated return the assessee has claimed deduction u/s. 80 P of the Act which has been denied by the Central Processing Centre u/s. 143 (1) of Printed from counselvise.com ITA No.1077/Bang/2025 Page 5 of 6 the Act. On appeal before the learned CIT – A, it was found that the appeal filed by the assessee is late by 810 days and therefore the delay was not condoned as no sufficient and reasonable cause was shown to the learned CIT – A as per his version. Therefore the appeal of the assessee was dismissed. We find that the assessee has explained the delay of 810 days by stating that it pursued the proceedings before the learned assessing officer/central processing Centre for sometime and later on when the demand order was passed, the President of the society approached the present counsel who advised to file the appeal. Subsequently it was also shown that there was an error on the portal of the income tax department wherein the appeal could not be filed. The portal screenshot was also submitted before the learned CIT – A who did not consider and discuss the whole issue of delay in filing of the appeal. Undoubtedly the delay in filing of the appeal has occurred because of not filing the miscellaneous application/rectification application before the Central Processing Centre by one of the consultant. The assessee was under a bonafide belief that the rectification application is the right course as advised by the consultant. Later on when the demand arose it was found that the appeal should have been filed before the learned CIT – A. When the appeal papers were prepared, there was an error on the portal of the income tax Department which prevented the assessee to file an appeal. In view of the above facts we find that there is a reasonable cause/sufficient cause in not filing an appeal in time which caused the delay of 810 days. We direct the learned CIT – A to condone the delay and decide the appeal Printed from counselvise.com ITA No.1077/Bang/2025 Page 6 of 6 of the assessee on its merit. The assessee is also directed to furnish the requisite information before the learned CIT – A. The learned CIT – A after giving an opportunity of hearing to the assessee to decide the issue on the merits. 9. Accordingly the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes. Pronounced in the open court on this 26th day of September, 2025. Sd/- ( PRASHANT MAHARISHI ) VICE PRESIDENT Bangalore, Dated, the 26th September, 2025. /Desai S Murthy / Copy to: 1. Appellant 2. Respondent 3. Pr. CIT 4. CIT(A) 5. DR, ITAT, Bangalore. By order Assistant Registrar ITAT, Bangalore. Printed from counselvise.com "