Regency Meadows Co-Operative Housing Society Limited, Pune V. Income Tax Officer, Ward-7(4), Pune, Pune

ITA 36/PUN/2023

AI Insights

The case involves Regency Meadows Co-operative Housing Society, which appealed against the order of the CIT(A)-5, Pune, concerning the assessment year 2015-16. The primary issue was the denial of deduction under section 80P of the Income Tax Act related to interest income, where the Assessing Officer (AO) had significantly increased the assessed income from Rs. 65,890 to Rs. 15,18,450. The CIT(A) dismissed the appeal in limine due to the assessee's non-appearance, without considering the merits of the case. The Tribunal found this approach inappropriate and emphasized that appeals should be decided on merits regardless of the parties' presence. Additionally, the Tribunal condoned the significant delay in filing the appeal, referencing judicial precedents that prioritize substantive justice over procedural lapses.

• Counselvise Citation: [2023] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 124124 (ITAT-PUNE)
• Duration Of Justice: 2 month(s) 4 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 14-03-2023
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: SMC
• Next Hearing Date: 14-03-2023
• Assessment Year: 2015-2016
• Appeal Filed On: 09-01-2023
• Other Referred Cases: Vijay Vishin Meghani Vs. DCIT & Anr, Concord of India Ins. Co. Limited VS Nirmala Devi, Anil Kumar Nehru and Another vs. ACIT
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act
• Result in Favour of: Matter Remanded
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Keywords: Period of limitation; Question of law
• Section: 80P; 250

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL SMC BENCH, PUNE BEFORE SHRI R.S. SYAL, VICE PRESIDENT आयकर अपील सं. /ITA No.36/PUN/2023 नधा रण वष / Assessment Year : 2015-16 Regency Meadows Co-operative Hsg. Soc., Sr.No.14, PMC Water Tank, Dhanori, Tal. Haveli, Pune 411 015 Maharashtra PAN : AABAR6545B Vs. ITO, Ward-7(4), Pune Appellant Respondent आदेश / ORDER PER R.S. SYAL, VP: This appeal by the assessee arises out of the order dated 29-05-2018 passed by the CIT(A)-5, Pune in relation to the assessment year 2015-16. 2. I have heard both the sides and gone through the relevant material on record. Shorn of needless facts, it is seen that the assessee is a co-operative housing society. The AO completed the assessment u/s.143(3) of the Act determining total income at Rs.15,18,450/- as against the total income shown by the assessee at Rs.65,890/-, denying deduction u/s 80P of the Act in relation to interest income. The ld. CIT(A), in para 2 of the impugned order, noted that “assessee had Assessee by Shri P.S. Shingte Revenue by Shri Mahesh Jasnani Date of hearing 15-03-2023 Date of pronouncement 15-03-2023 ITA No. 36/PUN/2023 Regency Meadows Co-operative Hsg.Soc. 2 been given adequate opportunities, which the assessee failed to respond to”. He, therefore, proceeded ahead and passed the ex-parte order qua the assessee dismissing the appeal in limine without going into merits. In my considered opinion, this course of action is not open to the ld. first appellate authority. Even if the assessee does not put in appearance, he is supposed to dispose of the appeal on merits. He is not vested with a power to dismiss the appeal for want of presence. The ld. CIT(A) in the extant case has breached the above course by dismissing the appeal in limine without going into its merits. As such, the impugned order cannot be countenanced. 3. It is pertinent to mention that the instant appeal is time barred before the Tribunal by 1627 days. There is no dispute that under section 253(5) of the Act, the Tribunal may admit an appeal filed beyond the period of limitation where it is satisfied that there exists a sufficient cause on the part of the assessee for not presenting the appeal within the prescribed time. 4. The moot point is as to whether such a long delay deserves condonation. At this stage, it is relevant to note the judgment of the Hon’ble Bombay High Court in Vijay Vishin Meghani Vs. DCIT & Anr (2017) 398 ITR 250 (Bom) holding that none should be deprived of an adjudication on merits unless it is found that the litigant ITA No. 36/PUN/2023 Regency Meadows Co-operative Hsg.Soc. 3 deliberately delayed the filing of appeal. In that case, delay of 2984 days crept in due to improper legal advice. Relying on Concord of India Ins. Co. Limited VS Nirmala Devi (1979) 118 ITR 507 (SC), the Hon’ble jurisdictional High Court condoned the delay. 5. In yet another case in Anil Kumar Nehru and Another vs. ACIT (2017) 98 CCH 0469 BomHC, there was a delay of 1662 days in filing the appeal. Such a delay was not condoned by the Hon’ble High Court. In further appeal, condoning the delay, the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Anil Kumar Nehru vs. ACIT (2018) 103 CCH 0231 ISCC, held that : `It is a matter of record that on the identical issue raised by the appellant in respect of earlier assessment, the appeal is pending before the High Court. In these circumstances, the High Court should not have taken such a technical view of dismissing the appeal in the instant case on the ground of delay, when it has to decide the question of law between the parties in any case in respect of earlier assessment year. For this reason we set aside the order of the High Court; condone the delay for filing the appeal and direct to decide the appeal on merits.’ 6. Turning to the facts of the instant appeal, I find that the legal issue of passing the ex parte order dismissing the appeal at the ITA No. 36/PUN/2023 Regency Meadows Co-operative Hsg.Soc. 4 threshold stage has no legal legs to stand on, which requires readjudication at the end of the ld. CIT(A). As against the situation in Anil Kumar Nehru (SC) in which the question of law was yet to be decided, I am confronted with a situation in which the question of law involved in the present appeal has only one possibility of readjudication. Under these circumstances, I condone the delay in the extant case. Setting aside the impugned order, I remit the matter to the file of the ld. CIT(A) with a direction to decide the appeal afresh on merits as per law after allowing reasonable opportunity of hearing to the assessee. In such fresh proceedings, the assessee will be at liberty to lead any fresh evidence as he considers expedient for its case. 7. In the result, the appeal is allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced in the Open Court on 15 th March, 2023. Sd/- (R.S.SYAL) VICE PRESIDENT पुणे Pune; िदनांक Dated : 15 th March, 2023 सतीश ITA No. 36/PUN/2023 Regency Meadows Co-operative Hsg.Soc. 5 आदेश की ितिलिप अ ेिषत/Copy of the Order is forwarded to : 1. अपीलाथ / The Appellant; 2. थ / The Respondent 3. 4. 5. The Pr.CIT-4, Pune DR, ITAT, ‘SMC’ Bench, Pune गाड फाईल / Guard file. आदेशानुसार/ BY ORDER, // True Copy // Senior Private Secretary आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण ,पुणे / ITAT, Pune Date 1. Draft dictated on 15-03-2023 Sr.PS 2. Draft placed before author 15-03-2023 Sr.PS 3. Draft proposed & placed before the second member JM 4. Draft discussed/approved by Second Member. JM 5. Approved Draft comes to the Sr.PS/PS Sr.PS 6. Kept for pronouncement on Sr.PS 7. Date of uploading order Sr.PS 8. File sent to the Bench Clerk Sr.PS 9. Date on which file goes to the Head Clerk 10. Date on which file goes to the A.R. 11. Date of dispatch of Order. *