MAHATMA FULE GRAMIN BIGAR SHETI SHAHAKARI PATSANSTHA MARYADIT,KHED V. ITO WARD8(3), PUNE

ITA 2167/PUN/2024

AI Insights

The case involves Mahatma Fule Gramin Bigar Sheti Sahakari Patsanstha Maryadit, a Cooperative Credit Society, which appealed against the order of the ld. Addl/JCIT(A) that dismissed their appeal due to a significant delay in filing. The delay was attributed to the transition period following the departure of the society's CEO. The primary legal issue was whether the deduction under section 80P claimed by the assessee for the Assessment Year 2019-20 could be disallowed due to the late filing of the tax return. The Tribunal found that the legal provisions applicable for the disallowance of such deductions were introduced in a later assessment year (2021-22) and were not retroactive.

• Counselvise Citation: [2024] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 24781 (ITAT-PUNE)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 24-12-2024
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: SMC
• Assessment Year: 2019-2020
• 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, Anil Kumar Nehru vs. ACIT
• Laws Referred To: Income-tax Act, 1961
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: SOURABH NAYAK
• Assessee Lawyers: PRAMOD SHINGTE
• Keywords: Set aside; Reasonable cause; Question of law
• Section: 250; 139(1); 80P

Judgement Text

" IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL PUNE BENCHES “SMC”, PUNE BEFORE DR.MANISH BORAD, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER आयकर अपील सं. / ITA No.2167/PUN/2024 Assessment Year : 2019-20 Mahatma Fule Gramin Bigar Sheti Sahakari Patsanstha Maryadit, Rajgurunagar, KHED – 410 505 Maharashtra PAN : AATFM4562G Vs The ITO, Ward-8(3), Pune Appellant Respondent आदेश / ORDER PER DR. MANISH BORAD, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER : This appeal by the assessee pertaining to Assessment Year 2019-20 is directed against the order of ld. Addl/JCIT(A)-1, Guwahati dated 14.06.2024 passed u/s.250 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter also called ‘the Act’) which inturn is arising out of the Intimation Order passed u/s.143(1) dated 28.05.2020. Assessee by : Shri Pramod Shingte Revenue by : Shri Sourabh Nayak Date of hearing : 19.12.2024 Date of pronouncement : 24.12.2024 ITA No.2167/PUN/2024 Mahatma Fule Gramin Bigarsheti Sahakari Patsanstha Maryadit 2 2. At the outset, I find the appeal is time barred by 78 days before the Tribunal. The assessee has filed an affidavit stating that CEO Mr. Sanket Satkar who was looking after the Administrative matters of the Society left the job and the Management is looking out for appointment of new CEO. This is the precise reason which led to delay in filing the appeal. 3. Having gone through the averments made in the affidavit and in the absence of anything contrary to disbelieve the assessee’s version made therein, I am of the opinion that there was ‘reasonable cause’ which prevented the assessee in filing the appeal before the Tribunal within the stipulated time. I therefore in the larger interest of justice condone the delay of 78 days and proceed for adjudication of appeal. 4. Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that the assessee is a Cooperative Credit Society engaged in the business of providing credit facilities to its members. The assessee filed the return of income u/s.139(4) of the Act for the A.Y. 2019-10 on 18.02.2020 declaring Nil income, after claiming deduction u/s.80P of the Act at Rs.11,03,998/-. The CPC vide its intimation dated 28.05.2020 disallowed the said claim. ITA No.2167/PUN/2024 Mahatma Fule Gramin Bigarsheti Sahakari Patsanstha Maryadit 3 5. Aggrieved assessee preferred appeal before the ld.Addl/JCIT(A) challenging the intimation order but with a delay of 1139 days. It was contended that the assessee was pursing the alternate remedy available to it by way of rectification application and hence the delay occurred. It was also contended that CPC was incorrect for the reason that clause covering all deductions under Chapter VI is inserted in section 143(1)(a)(v) w.e.f. A.Y. 2021-22, therefore, such adjustment of disallowing section 80P deduction if return is not filed before the due date prescribed u/s.139(1) is not permitted in the A.Y. 2019-20. However, the ld. Addl/JCIT(A) invoking the provisions of section 249(2) dismissed the appeal, without condoning the delay. 6. Now the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal 7. I have heard the parties and perused the record placed before me. On perusal of the impugned, order, it is pertinent to mention that the assessee filed the appeal before the ld.Addl.JCIT(A) with a delay of 1139 days. Primarily, the moot point under consideration 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 ITA No.2167/PUN/2024 Mahatma Fule Gramin Bigarsheti Sahakari Patsanstha Maryadit 4 none should be deprived of an adjudication on merits unless it is found that the litigant 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. 8. 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.’ ITA No.2167/PUN/2024 Mahatma Fule Gramin Bigarsheti Sahakari Patsanstha Maryadit 5 9. Turning to the facts of the instant appeal, we find that the legal issue of passing the ex parte order dismissing the appeal at the threshold stage has merits in favour of the assessee. Considering the principles enunciated in the above judicial precedents, I am of the view of the delay of 1139 days deserves condonation for paying way to render substantial justice. 10. Coming to the issue on merits, the issue arises for my consideration is whether the CPC was justified in denying the deduction claimed by the assessee u/s.80P of the Act for filing the return belatedly. I note that the amendment carried out in Finance Act, 2021 w.e.f. 01.04.2021 with respect to allowing of deduction u/s.80P of the Act is prospective in nature. Admittedly, the assessment year under consideration is 2019- 20. In support of its contention, the ld. Counsel for the assessee drew the attention of the Bench to the decision of Coordinate Bench of the Tribunal in the case of Finolex Industries Ltd. Employees Co-o. Credit Society Ltd. Vs. ITO in ITA No.76/PUN/2023, dated 03.04.2023 wherein the issue was decided in favour of the assessee by observing as under : “5. We have heard the submissions of the parties, considered the relevant materials/documents on record and analysed the facts and circumstances in this case. Section143(1)(a)(v) of the Act spells out that if any deduction is claimed under any of the provisions of Chapter VI-A which include deduction u/s 80P such deduction has to be allowed ITA No.2167/PUN/2024 Mahatma Fule Gramin Bigarsheti Sahakari Patsanstha Maryadit 6 only if the return is filed within due date specified under sub-section 139(1) of the Act. In other words, if any return is filed beyond due date u/s 139(1) of the Act then no deduction u/s 80P shall be allowed. However, clause (v) was inserted by the Finance Act, 2021 w.e.f. 01- 04-2021. The case of the assessee, on the other hand, is for F.Y. 2018- 19 relevant to A.Y. 2019-20 which is the period prior to amendment brought in by the Finance Act, 2021. Before this amendment, clause (v) did not include and cover deduction u/s 80P. So therefore, in the present Case of the assessee though admittedly return was filed beyond the time limit prescribed u/s 139(1) of the Act but still section 143(1)(a)(v) is not applicable to the assessee since the case of the assessee is for A.Y. 2019-20, which is before the amendment. We also accept the argument of the ld. A.R for the assessee that even if the revenue intends to invoke clause (ii) of section 143(1)(a) that would also not be permissible since in the definition of incorrect claim as provided in the provision, the deduction u/s 80P is not included anywhere and is therefore, outside the purview of the said provision. Therefore, rigors of provisions of section 143(1)(a)(ii) and clause (v) are not applicable to the case of the assessee. On this legal ground itself, the assessee succeeds and any other grounds on merits, if any, becomes academic in nature.” 11. On perusal of the above, I find that the facts of the above case are identical to the instant case of assessee. Following the decision of the Coordinate Bench of the Tribunal (supra), I hold that CPC was not justified in disallowing the deduction claimed by assessee u/s.80P of the Act for A.Y. 2019-10 as the powers for doing so were brought into the Act from A.Y. 2021-22. I therefore reverse the impugned order of the lower authorities and direct the Assessing Officer to allow the deduction claimed by the assessee u/s.80P of the Act. Grounds raised by the assessee are allowed. ITA No.2167/PUN/2024 Mahatma Fule Gramin Bigarsheti Sahakari Patsanstha Maryadit 7 12. In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed. Order pronounced on this 24th day of December, 2024. Sd/- (MANISH BORAD) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER पुणे / Pune; \u0001दनांक / Dated : 24th December, 2024. Satish आदेश क\u0002 \u0003ितिलिप अ ेिषत / Copy of the Order forwarded to : 1. अपीलाथ / The Appellant. 2. \u000eयथ / The Respondent. 3. The Pr. CIT concerned. 4. िवभागीय ितिनिध, आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, “SMC” ब\u0014च, पुणे / DR, ITAT, “SMC” Bench, Pune. 5. गाड\u0004 फ़ाइल / Guard File. आदेशानुसार / BY ORDER, // True Copy // Senior Private Secretary आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, पुणे / ITAT, Pune. "