Urja Karmchari Sakh Alp Bachat Sahkarita Maryadit, Sagar V. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, CPC, Bangalore, Bangalore

ITA 1/JAB/2022

AI Insights

The case involves Urja Karmchari Sakh Alp Bachat Sahkarita Maryadit, the appellant, contesting the dismissal of their appeal by the Commissioner of Income Tax-Appeals, National Faceless Appeal Centre (CIT(A)). The dismissal was based on the late filing of the income tax return for the Assessment Year 2018-19, which was filed on 30-03-2019, after the due date. The appellant claimed a deduction under section 80-P, which was not allowed by the CIT(A). The Tribunal considered the appellant's request to remit the matter back to the Assessing Officer (AO) for a decision on merits, should the delay in filing be condoned, referencing CBDT Circular No. 9/2015 which allows for such a condonation under certain circumstances.

• Counselvise Citation: [2022] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 112972 (ITAT-JABALPUR)
• Duration Of Justice: 10 month(s) 23 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 28-11-2022
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: PartlyAllowedPartlyAllowed
• Bench Allotted: DB
• Next Hearing Date: 14-11-2022
• Assessment Year: 2018-2019
• Appeal Filed On: 04-01-2022
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act, 1961
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Assessee Lawyers: S DHEERAJ GHAI; MRINAL VARUN
• Keywords: Competent authority; Condonation of delay; Set aside
• Section: 143(1); 80P

Judgement Text

1 | P a g e IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL JABALPUR BENCH, JABALPUR BEFORE SHRI SANJAY ARORA, HON’BLE ACCOUNTANT MEMBER & SHRI MANOMOHAN DAS, HON'BLE JUDICIAL MEMBER I.T.A. No. 01/JAB/2022 (Asst. Year: 2018-19) Appellant by : S/Shri Dheeraj Ghai & Mrinal Varun, FCAs Respondent by : Shri Ravi Mehrotra, Sr. DR Date of hearing : 15/11/2022 Date of pronouncement : 29/11/2022 O R D E R Per Bench: This is an Appeal by the Assessee directed against the Order dated 12-11- 2021 by the Commissioner of Income Tax-Appeals, National Faceless Appeal Centre (‘CIT(A)’ for short), dismissing the assessee’s appeal contesting the processing of it’s return of income for Assessment Year (AY) 2018-19 under section 143(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (‘the Act’ hereinafter). 2. The brief facts of the matter are that, the assessee filed his return of income on 30-03-2019 claiming total deduction of Rs. 8,36,498 under section 80-P of Chapter VI-A which was rejected by the ld. CIT(A) and accordingly, feeling aggrieved, the assessee filed the captioned appeal before the Tribunal, raising the following Grounds: Urja Karmchari Sakh Alp Bachat Sahkarita Maryadit, 117, Makroniya Sadbhawna Nagar, Sagar. [PAN : AAAAU 2052 K] vs. ITO, Ward-2, Sagar. (Appellant) (Respondent) ITA No. 01/JAB/2022 (AY: 2018-19) Urja Karmchari Sakh Alp Bachat Sahkarita Maryadit v. Asst. CIT 2 | P a g e 1. On the facts & circumstances of the case ld. CIT(A) erred in not allowing deduction under section 80P as claimed in return although filed late on account of reasons beyond the control of assessee. 2. On the facts and circumstances of the case ld. CIT(A) erred in finally hearing of the appeals in Corona pandemic period hence the reply couldn’t be submitted. In lieu of no proper opportunity given the ld. CIT(A) order is bad in law too. 3. That CIT(A) order dated 12-11-2021 is bad in law for other reason too. 4. The appellant craves leave to add or amend any ground of the appeal. 3. Heard both the parties, and perused the material on record. 3.1 Shri Dheeraj Ghai, the ld. counsel for the assessee, would submit that the assessee filed his return of income on 30/3/2019, i.e., after the due date of filing the return, and on this ground, the ld. CIT(A) has confirmed the disallowance of deduction claimed thereunder u/s. 80P of the Act per the said return. 3.2 Shri Ghai would further submit that the assessee has made an application to the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, Jabalpur (‘Pr. CIT’) for condonation of delay in filing the return for the assessment year 2018-19 on November 9, 2022. It is further submitted that on the basis of the CBDT Circular No. 9/2015 [F.NO.312/22/2015-OT], Dated 9-06-2015, which authority has the authority to condone delay in filing of return of income of an assessee where the claim amount does not, as in the instant case, exceed rs. 10 lacs. We were accordingly urged by him to remit the matter back to the file of the AO for a decision on merits where the said delay stands condoned. 3.3 We have perused the impugned order, and find that the appeal of the assessee has been dismissed due to non-filing the return on or before the due date of filing the return, for which reference may be made to para 4.1.9 thereof. 3.5 In view of clear prescription of section 80-AC of the Act, we find no infirmity in the impugned order confirming the disallowance of deduction claimed u/s. 80-P falling under Chapter VIA of the Act. A perusal of the copy of the ITA No. 01/JAB/2022 (AY: 2018-19) Urja Karmchari Sakh Alp Bachat Sahkarita Maryadit v. Asst. CIT 3 | P a g e application submitted with the office of the ld. Pr. CIT shows the same to be for condonation of delay in filing the return for the current year, and received by the said office on November 9, 2022. The same is in terms of the cited Circular and, therefore, is to be disposed by the ld. Pr. CIT within the stipulated period. 3.6 As the assessee’s application for condonation of delay in filing it’s return is pending disposal as on date by the competent authority, we have little hesitation in accepting the assessee’s plea for restoring the matter back to be decided in accordance with law, i.e., on merits, in case the delay in filing the return is condoned, else the assessment as made stands confirmed. Though we have in principle no hesitation in accepting the assessee’s prayer, at the same time, we find no reason to set aside the assessment which is in accordance with law. Under the circumstances, we only consider it proper to restore the matter to the file of the first appellate authority for the purpose, i.e., to decide the issue of deduction u/s. 80-P on merits in the event of condonation of the delay in the furnishing of the return. It may do so by calling for a remand report in the matter from the AO, again, after hearing the assessee, or decide the matter itself after hearing both the sides before it. This shall also obviate the time limitation to which the assessment order would be otherwise subject. 3.7 We decide accordingly. 4. We dispose the appeal of the assessee accordingly. Order pronounced in open Court on November 29, 2022 Sd/- Sd/- (Sanjay Arora) (Manomohan Das) Accountant Member Judicial Member Date: 29/11/2022 vr/- ITA No. 01/JAB/2022 (AY: 2018-19) Urja Karmchari Sakh Alp Bachat Sahkarita Maryadit v. Asst. CIT 4 | P a g e Copy to: 1. The Appellant: Urja Karmchari Sakh Alp Bachat Sahkarita Maryadit, 117, Makroniya Sadbhawna Nagar, Sagar. 2. The Respondent: ITO, Ward-2, Sagar. 3. CIT( Appeals)-NF AC, Delhi 4. The Sr .D.R., ITAT, Jabalpur. 5. Guard File. By order (VUKKEM RAMBABU) Sr. Private Secretary, ITAT, Jabalpur.