K809, UDUMALAI PAPPANKULAM PRIMARY AGRL COOP CREDIT SOCIETY, UDUMALPET V. ITO,WRD-2(4), TIRUPUR

ITA 998/CHNY/2022

AI Insights

The case involves the K.809 Udumalai Pappankulam Primary Agri. Co-Op. Credit Society, which appealed against the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi. The original assessment was made by the Income Tax Officer, Ward-2(4), Chennai for the assessment year 2017-18. The appeal to the Tribunal was initially time-barred, but the Tribunal found the reasons for the delay reasonable and admitted the appeal. The Tribunal noted that the assessee had also faced a delay in filing the appeal before the CIT(A), which was not addressed by the CIT(A). The Tribunal decided to remand the case back to the CIT(A) for a decision on the merits, imposing a cost on the assessee to ensure compliance.

• Counselvise Citation: [2023] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 135077 (ITAT-CHENNAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 3 month(s) 11 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 06-03-2023
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: C
• Next Hearing Date: 06-03-2023
• Assessment Year: 2017-2018
• Appeal Filed On: 24-11-2022
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act, 1961
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Keywords: Set aside
• Section: 143(3); 80P

Judgement Text

आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, ‘सी/एस एम सी’’ यायपीठ, चे ई। IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ‘C/SMC’ BENCH: CHENNAI ी महावीर सह, उपा य के सम BEFORE SHRI MAHAVIR SINGH, VICE PRESIDENTAND आयकर अपील सं./ITA No.998/Chny/2022 िनधा रण वष /Assessment Year: 2017-18 K.809 Udumalai Pappankulam Primary Agri. Co-Op. Credit Society, Pappankulam, Madathukulam, Udumalpet – 642 204. Vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-2(4), Tirupur. [PAN: AABAK-3729-L] ( अपीलाथ /Appellant) ( यथ /Respondent) अपीलाथ क ओर से/ Appellant by : Shri S.Sridhar, Advocate (Erode) यथ क ओर से /Respondent by : Shri S. Chandrasekaran, JCIT सुनवाई क तारीख/Date of Hearing : 07.03.2023 घोषणा क तारीख /Date of Pronouncement : 07.03.2023 आदेश / O R D E R This appeal by the assessee is arising out of the order of Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi, [CIT(A)] in Appeal No.CIT(A), Coimbatore- 3/11457/2019-20 dated 25-08-2022. The Assessment was framed by Income Tax Officer, Ward-2(4), Chennai for the relevant A.Y. 2017-18 vide order dated 30.12.2019 u/s. 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter ‘the Act’). ITA No.998/Chny/2022 :- 2 -: 2. At the outset it is noticed that this appeal is time barred by 32 days. As per Form-36, the date of service or communication of the appellate order is 25.08.2022 and the appeal before the Tribunal is to be filed on or before 23.10.2022, whereas the appeal was filed by the assessee on 25.11.2022. Thereby, there is a delay of 32 days. The assessee has stated reasons that during this period the Secretary of the assessee was ill and due to that the appeal could not be filed. When this fact was confronted to Ld. Sr. D.R he could not controvert the above fact situation. After going through the reasons stated by the assessee in his affidavit for condonation of delay, the reasons seems to be reasonable and hence, I condone the delay and admit the appeal for adjudication. 3. It is noticed that even before CIT(A), the assessee filed a delayed appeal and there was delay of 53 days. The CIT(A) has not confronted the aspect of delay before CIT(A). Now, before us the Ld. counsel for the assessee explained that the assessee filed writ petition before the Hon’ble Madras High Court on 13.02.2020 challenging the validity of the assessment order, which was subsequently dismissed by judgment dated 17.02.2020 in Writ Petition No.3771 of 2020 and thereby, the assessee could file the appeal before CIT(A) with a delay of 53 days. According to Ld. counsel when the assessee was availing ITA No.998/Chny/2022 :- 3 -: alternative remedy, the CIT(A) should have condoned the delay. When these facts were confronted the Ld. Sr. D.R, he stated that the assessee is a habitual defaulter and hence, CIT(A) has rightly not condoned the delay. After going through the facts of the case, I am of the view that before the Tribunal there was a delay of 35 days and there was further delay before CIT(A) of 53 days, that the issue prima facie seems a reasonable in respect of claim of deduction u/s. 80P of the Act in regard to the members of the society, hence substantial justice should not be defeated. Hence, by imposing a cost of Rs. 10,000/-, I condone the delay before the CIT(A). Since, the CIT(A) has not condoned the delay and not adjudicated the issues on merits, I after condoning the delay remand the matter back to the file of CIT(A) for deciding the issue on merits. However, this would be subject to a payment of cost of Rs.10,000/- to the Tamil Nadu State Legal Services Authority at Hon’ble High Court of Madras before appearing CIT(A). The CIT(A) will ensure that this cost of Rs. 10,000/- is to be paid by the assessee to the Tamil Nadu State Legal Services Authority. In term of the above, the order of CIT(A) is set aside and remand the matter back to the file of CIT(A) for fresh adjudication. ITA No.998/Chny/2022 :- 4 -: 4. In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced in the Open Court on 07 th of March, 2023. Sd/- (महावीर िसंह) (Mahavir Singh) उपा / Vice President चे ई/Chennai, दनांक/Dated: 07-03-2023 EDN/- आदेश क ितिलिप अ ेिषत/Copy to: 1. अपीलाथ /Appellant 2. थ /Respondent 3. आयकर आयु /CIT 4. िवभागीय ितिनिध/DR 5. गाड फाईल/GF