JANKALYAN CO-OP. HOUSING SOCIETY LTD. ,RAJKOT V. INCOME TAX OFFICER. WARD - 1(1)(1), RAJKOT

ITA 227/RJT/2024

AI Insights

The case involves Jankalyan Co-op Housing Society, which appealed against the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), Udaipur, which had dismissed their appeal as non-maintainable due to a delay in filing. The society had claimed a deduction under section 80P of the Income Tax Act, which was disallowed by the Assessing Officer, CPC Bangalore, for the assessment year 2018-19. The CIT(A) rejected the appeal on the grounds of delay without considering the merits. The Tribunal, referencing several Supreme Court judgments, found that the delay was not deliberate and condoned it, emphasizing the importance of substantial justice over technicalities.

• Counselvise Citation: [2024] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 472616 (ITAT-RAJKOT)
• Duration Of Justice: 6 month(s) 2 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 15-10-2024
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: DB
• Next Hearing Date: 01-10-2024
• Assessment Year: 2018-2019
• Appeal Filed On: 12-04-2024
• Other Referred Cases: Collector, Land Acquisition v. Mst. Katiji, N. Balakrishnan v. M. Krishnamurthy, Senior Bhosale Estate (HUF) v. ACIT, Smt. Samanthapudi Lavanya v. ACIT
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: ABHIMANYU SINGH YADAV
• Assessee Lawyers: VIMAL DESAI
• Keywords: Condonation of delay
• Section: 154; 143(1); 139(1); 80P

Judgement Text

" आयकर अपीलȣय अͬधकरण,राजकोट Ûयायपीठ, राजकोट। IN THE INCOMETAXAPPELLATE TRIBUNAL, RAJKOT BENCH: RAJKOT BEFORE DR. ARJUN LAL SAINI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER And SHRI DINESH MOHAN SINHA, JUDICIAL MEMBER आयकर अपील सं./ITA No. 227/RJT/2024 (Ǔनधा[रण वष[/Assessment Year: (2018-19) Jankalyan Co-op Housing Society, Rajkot Street No. 03, Shree Jankalyan Community Hall, Jankalyan Society, Rajkot-360001 Vs. The Income Tax Officer, Circle-1(1)(1), Rajkot èथायी लेखा सं./जीआइआरसं./PAN/GIR No.: AAAAJ0387L (अपीलाथȸ/Appellant) (Ĥ×यथȸ/Respondent) Ǔनधा[ǐरती कȧ ओर से/Appellant by : Shri Vimal Desai, A.R. राजèव कȧ ओर से/Respondent by : Shri Abhimanyu Singh Yadav, Sr. D.R. सुनवाई कȧ तारȣख/ Date of Hearing : 01/10/2024 घोषणा कȧ तारȣख/Date of Pronouncement : 15/10/2024 आदेश / O R D E R PER SHRI DINESH MOHAN SINHA, JUDICIAL MEMBER: This appeal filed by the assessee is directed against the order of Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) [in short, “Addl./JCIT(A)”], Udaipur order dated 19.02.2024 for assessment year 2018-19. 2. The assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal:- “1. The intimation order u/s. 143(1) of the Act is bad in law. 2. The learned Assessing Officer has erred in law as well as on facts in disallowing the deduction of Rs. 2,87,890/- claimed u/s. 80P of the Act. 3. The ld. CIT(A) has erred in law as well as on facts in dismissing the appeal as non-maintainable without condoning the delay in filing the appeal.” Page | 2 ITA No. 227/RJT/2024 A Y:2018-19 3. The assessee filed return of income within time provided u/s. 139(1) claiming deduction u/s. 80P being co-operative society. That the assessee has claimed deduction u/s. 80P in previous years and being granted by the Income Tax Department. During this relevant assessment year i.e. AY 2018-19, the ld. A.O, CPC disallowed claim made for deduction u/s. 80P of the Act and determined the income of the assessee without granting deduction under the said section. That the ld. AO(CPC) in making an order and computed the appellant’s total income at Rs. 2,87,890/- after making adjustment amounting to Rs. 2,87,890/- on account of disallowance of deduction u/s. 80P of the Act vide order dated 12-07-2019. That the assessee preferred an appeal against the order dated 12-09-2019 of the AO, CPC on 17-02-2020 before the office of the CIT(A) (NFAC, Delhi). That since the appeal filed by the assessee was late by 178 days, the ld. CIT(A) has disposed of the appeal by rejecting the contention of the assessee on the ground of delay in filing the appeal before CIT(A). The ld. CIT(A) has disposed of the appeal stating that the appeal filed is not inconfirmity with provision of section 249(2) of the Act and there is no sufficient cause for condonation of delay in filing the appeal. The present appeal is dismissed as not maintainable. 4. The assessee being aggrieved by the impugned order dated 19-02-2024 challenged the legality and validity of the order by filing appeal before ITAT, Rajkot. During the course of hearing, the A.R. submitted that the delay in filing the appeal before the CIT(A) was due to that the society is in remote far way from the city, no availability of communication through computer and the order not served on the assessee and it was only came to know notice of the assessee when a demand notice and challan was served on the assessee, then the assessee has taken the cognizance and filed an appeal before the ld. CIT(A). On the contrary, the ld. DR has submitted that the assessee has already filed an application for rectification u/s. 154 of the Act which is pending before the authority and the assessee is negligent, that is why the appeal is filed late and the ld. DR has relied on the order of ld. CIT(A) dated 19-02-2024. Perusal of Page | 3 ITA No. 227/RJT/2024 A Y:2018-19 the order of Ld. CIT(A), the assessee has prayed for condonation but it was rejected due to insufficient cause. The argument of the assessee-appellant that the delay in filing is not in the hands of the appellant and he drawn the attention towards judgment delivered by the Supreme Court in ITA 30/Ahd/2023, Shri Saraswati Trust as follows:- “4.1 The Supreme Court in the case of Collector, Land Acquisition v. Mst. Katiji 1987 taxmann.com 1072, analyzed the provisions of law qua limitation Act and held that the expression 'sufficient cause' employed by the legislature in the Limitation Act is adequately elastic to enable the Courts to apply the law in a meaningful manner which sub-serves the ends Shri Saraswati Trust vs. CIT(E) Asst.Year -2021-22 of justice-that being the life purpose for the existence of the institution of Courts. It was further observed that a liberal approach is requires to be adopted on principle as ordinarily a litigant does not stand to benefit by lodging an appeal late. Further refusing to condone delay can result in a meritorious matter being thrown out at the very threshold and cause of justice being defeated. As against this when delay is condoned the highest that can happen is that a cause would be decided on merits after hearing the parties. The Apex Court further held that when substantial justice and technical considerations are pitted against each other, cause of substantial justice deserves to be preferred for the other side cannot claim to have vested right in injustice being done because of a non- deliberate delay. It must be grasped that judiciary is respected not on account of its power to legalize injustice on technical grounds but because it is capable of removing injustice and is expected to do so. 4.2 The Supreme Court in N. Balakrishnan v. M. Krishnamurthy 2008 (228) ELT 162, while condoning the delay of 883 days in filing an application for setting aside the ex parte decree held \"That the purpose of Limitation Act was not to destroy the rights. It is founded on public policy fixing a life span for the legal remedy for the general welfare. The primary function of a Court is to adjudicate disputes between the parties and to advance substantial justice. The time limit fixed for approaching the Court in different situations is not because on the expiry of such time a bad cause would transform into a good cause. The object of providing legal remedy is to repair the damage caused by reason of legal injury. If the explanation given does not smack mala fides or is not Shri Saraswati Trust vs. CIT(E) Asst.Year -2021-22 shown to have been put forth as a part of a dilatory strategy, the Court must show utmost consideration to the suitor.\" 4.3 The Supreme Court in the case of Senior Bhosale Estate (HUF) v. ACIT [2019] 112 taxmann.com 134 (SC) held that where revenue did not expressly refute stand taken by assessee that they had no knowledge about passing of order of Tribunal, dated 29-12-2003, until June, 2008, assessee's delay of 1754 days in filing appeal before Bombay High Court against Tribunal order was to be condoned. The brief facts of the case were that assessee sought condonation of delay of 1754 days in filing appeals against order, dated 29-12-2003, passed by Tribunal. The assessee pleaded that it had no knowledge about passing of Tribunal's order, until it was confronted with auction notices in June, 2008, issued by competent authority, immediately upon which, assessee filed appeal with High Court. The High Court dismissed assessee's appeals holding that these were not fit cases in which inordinate delay of 1754 days in filing appeals deserved to be condoned. However, it was found that respondent revenue did not expressly refute stand taken by assessee that they had no knowledge about passing of order, dated 29-12-2003, until June, 2008.The Supreme Court held that unless that fact was to be refuted by the Revenue, question of disbelieving stand taken by assessee on affidavit, could not arise and for which reason, High Court should have shown sympathy to assessee by condoning delay in filing concerned appeal(s). 4.4 The Vishakhapatnam ITAT in the case of Smt. Samanthapudi Lavanya v. ACIT [2021] 127 taxmann.com 188 (Visakhapatnam - Trib.) held that where assessee was under bona fide impression that its Shri Saraswati Trust vs. CIT(E) Asst.Year -2021-22 appeal had been filed Page | 4 ITA No. 227/RJT/2024 A Y:2018-19 by accountant, but came to know fact of not having filed appeal when there was pressure from department for payment of demand, delay of 492 days in filing appeal was to be condoned, in the interests of justice. 5. In view of the foregoing circumstances, in interest of justice, we are hereby condoning the delay in filing of the present appeal.” 5. We have heard the matter and gone through the record of the proceedings and it noticed that the assessee is a co-operative society and regularly availing the deduction u/s. 80P of the Act. During the year, the deduction is denied to the assessee by CPC Bangalore. It was further noted that the ld. CIT(A) has not disposed of the appeal on merit and has decided only on the basis of delay in filing the appeal. In the interest of justice and consideration of the facts of the case, we hereby condone the delay of 178 days and remit the matter back to the file of CIT(A) for deciding the appeal on merit. We further direct the ld. AR of the assessee to file all the relevant documents and comply with the notice of the ld. CIT(A). 6. In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes. Order is pronounced on 15/10/2024 in the Open Court. Sd/- Sd/-S (DR. ARJUN LAL SAINI) (DINESH MOHAN SINHA) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER Rajkot TRUE COPY Ǒदनांक/ Date: 15/10/2024 Copy of the Order forwarded to 1. The Assessee 2.The Respondent 3.The CIT(A) 4.Pr. CIT 5.DR/AR, ITAT, Rajkot 6. Guard File. By Order, Assistant Registrar/Sr. PS/PS ITAT, Rajkot "