Agricultural Produce Market Committee, Ahmednagar V. Assistant Director of Income-Tax, CPC, , Bangalore

ITA 28/PUN/2022

AI Insights

The case involves the Agricultural Produce Market Committee, Ahmednagar, which appealed against the order of the NFAC, Delhi, which had dismissed their appeal in limine due to a 3-year delay in filing. The appellant had initially claimed exemption under section 80P of the Income Tax Act, 1961, which was denied by the ADIT, CPC, Bangalore. The appellant argued that the delay was caused by administrative changes and only became aware of the tax demand after receiving a notice from the Assessing Officer. The Tribunal found merit in the appellant's arguments and directed the NFAC to reconsider the appeal on its merits.

• Counselvise Citation: [2023] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 137149 (ITAT-PUNE)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 1 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 10-01-2023
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: PartlyAllowed
• Bench Allotted: A
• Next Hearing Date: 08-01-2023
• Assessment Year: 2016-2017
• Appeal Filed On: 09-01-2022
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act, 1961
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Section: 143(1); 80P

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL PUNE BENCH “A”, PUNE BEFORE SHRI INTURI RAMA RAO, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI S. S. VISWANETHRA RAVI, JUDICIAL MEMBER आयकर अपील सं. / ITA No.28/PUN/2022 िनधाᭅरण वषᭅ / Assessment Year : 2016-17 Agricultural Produce Market Committee, Ahmednagar, Kisan Kranti Building, Market Yard, Station Road, Market Yard, Ahmednagar- 414001. PAN : AAALA0304R Vs. ACIT, CPC, Bangalore. Appellant Respondent आदेश / ORDER PER INTURI RAMA RAO, AM: This is an appeal filed by the assessee directed against the order of the National Faceless Appeal Centre (‘NFAC’), Delhi dated 13.10.2021 for the assessment year 2016-17. 2. Briefly, the facts of the case are that the appellant is an Agricultural Produce Market Committee established under the Assessee by : Shri Kihore B. Phadke Revenue by : Shri Ramnath P. Murkunde Date of hearing : 09.01.2023 Date of pronouncement : 11.01.2023 ITA No.28/PUN/2022 2 Agricultural Market Committee Act, 1963 with the object of providing facilities to marketing of agricultural produce within the district of Ahmednagar, Maharashtra. The Return of Income for the assessment year 2016-17 was filed on 02.09.2016 claiming exemption under the provisions of section 80P of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (‘the Act’). Against the said return of income, an Intimation u/s 143(1) was issued by the ADIT, CPC, Bangalore vide intimation dated 13.01.2017 denying the exemption u/s 80P of the Act. 3. Being aggrieved, an appeal was filed before the NFAC contending that the exemption of income was claimed u/s 10(26AAB) of the Act. The ADIT, CPC, Bangalore, based on the information, documents accompanied the return of income should allow the exemption u/s 10(26AAB) of the Act. However, the appeal was filed with the delay of 3 years. The NFAC dismissed the appeal in limine without condoning the delay placing reliance of the certain judicial precedents as well as without going into the merits of the case. 4. Being aggrieved, the appellant is in appeal before us in the present appeal. ITA No.28/PUN/2022 3 5. It is submitted that the NFAC ought to have condoned the delay in view of the fact that the appellant had strong case on merits and the delay was caused on account of transfer of the offices looking after the income-tax matters. The appellant had come about notice of intimation only after the Assessing Officer issued notice to collect the tax demand. 6. On the other hand, ld. Sr. DR supported the order of the NFAC and pleaded that there is no perversity or fallacy in the order of the NFAC. Hence, no interference is called for by this Tribunal. 7. We heard the rival submissions and perused the material on record. At the outset, we find that the NFAC had dismissed the appeal in limine on the ground of delay after referring to the certain judgements of the Hon’ble Supreme Court on the condonation of delay. We have carefully gone through those judgements and find that the ratio of those judgements referred to by the NFAC in fact advances the case of the appellant. Thus, we find that the NFAC was not justified in not condoning the delay of 3 years. Therefore, we direct the NFAC to condone the delay of 3 years and adjudicate the appeal on merits after affording reasonable opportunity of being heard to the appellant. ITA No.28/PUN/2022 4 8. In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee stands partly allowed. Order pronounced on this 11 th day of January, 2023. Sd/- Sd/- (S. S. VISWANETHRA RAVI) (INTURI RAMA RAO) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER पुणे / Pune; ᳰदनांक / Dated : 11 th January, 2023. Sujeet आदेश कᳱ ᮧितिलिप अᮕेिषत / Copy of the Order forwarded to : 1. अपीलाथᱮ / The Appellant. 2. ᮧ᭜यथᱮ / The Respondent. 3. The NFAC, Delhi. 4. The Pr. CIT concerned. 5. िवभागीय ᮧितिनिध, आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, “A” बᱶच, पुणे / DR, ITAT, “A” Bench, Pune. 6. गाडᭅ फ़ाइल / Guard File. आदेशानुसार / BY ORDER, // True Copy // Senior Private Secretary आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, पुणे / ITAT, Pune.