PAIRPRA SERVICE CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD,ERNAKULAM V. ITO, WARD-1 & TPS, THODUPUZHA

ITA 768/COCH/2024

AI Insights

The case involves Paipra Service Co-op. Bank Ltd., a cooperative society engaged in providing credit facilities, which appealed against the order of the CIT(A) for the Assessment Year 2021-22. The society had filed its return claiming a deduction under section 80P(2)(a)(i) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, which was significantly disallowed by the Income Tax Officer (ITO), resulting in a higher assessed income. The CIT(A) dismissed the appeal due to a procedural delay in filing the appeal. The ITAT found that the CIT(A) had not adequately considered the reasons for the delay provided by the appellant and thus remanded the case for a fresh hearing.

• Counselvise Citation: [2025] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 668783 (ITAT-COCHIN)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 23-06-2025
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Partly Allowed
• Bench Allotted: DB
• Assessment Year: 2021-2022
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act, 1961
• Result in Favour of: Partly Allowed
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: LEENA LAL
• Assessee Lawyers: SWATHY S.
• Keywords: Condonation of delay
• Section: 143(3); 154

Judgement Text

" IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL COCHIN BENCH BEFORE SHRI INTURI RAMA RAO, AM AND SHRI PRAKASH CHAND YADAV, JM ITA No. 768/Coch/2024 Assessment Year: 2021-22 Paipra Service Co-op. Bank Ltd. .......... Appellant 11/266, Manary P.O., Ernakulam 686673 [PAN: AAAAP7650E] vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-1 & TPS .......... Respondent Thodupuzha Appellant by: Ms. Swathy S., Advocate Respondent by: Smt. Leena Lal, Sr. D.R. Date of Hearing: 28.05.2025 Date of Pronouncement: 23.06.2025 O R D E R Per: Inturi Rama Rao, AM This appeal filed by the assessee is directed against the order of the National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi [CIT(A)] dated 15.03.2024 for Assessment Year (AY) 2021-22. 2. Brief facts of the case are that the appellant is a co-operative society registered under the Kerala State Co-operative Societies Act, 1969 and classified as a primary agricultural co-operative society. It is engaged in the business of providing credit facilities to its members. The return of income for AY 2021-22 was filed on 2 ITA No. 768/Coch/2024 Paipra Service Co-op. Bank Ltd. 14.03.2022 disclosing income of Rs. 59,800/- after claiming deduction u/s. 80P(2)(a)(i) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (the Act) of Rs. 1,13,68,960/-. Against the said return of income, the assessment was completed by the Income Tax Officer, Ward-1, Thodupuzha (hereinafter called \"the AO\") vide order dated 13.12.2022 passed u/s. 143(3) r.w.s. 144B of the Act at a total income of Rs. 2,32,47,535/-. While doing so, the AO made disallowance of establishment expenditure of Rs. 1,44,22,589/- for the failure of the assessee to substantiate the same. The AO also disallowed the claim for deduction u/s. 80P(2)(d) of the Act in respect of interest income earned from other than co-operative societies. 3. Being aggrieved, an appeal was filed before the CIT(A), who vide the impugned order refused to condone the delay in filing the appeal before him by 60 days in the absence of application seeking condonation of delay before him. 4. Being aggrieved, the appellant is in appeal before this Tribunal in the present appeal. 5. At the outset, there is a delay of 108 days in filing the appeal before this Tribunal. The appellant had filed a petition seeking condonation of delay on the ground that the delay had occurred on account of pursuit of alternative remedy through petition u/s. 154 of the Act. 3 ITA No. 768/Coch/2024 Paipra Service Co-op. Bank Ltd. 6. Having heard the rival submissions, we are of the considered opinion that it is a fit case to condone the delay and, therefore, we condone the delay and admit the appeal for adjudication. 7. We find that the CIT(A) had dismissed the appeal in limine on the ground of delay without condoning the delay of 60 days. On a mere reading of the order of the CIT(A), we are unable to discern whether the CIT(A) had given reasonable opportunity to the appellant to explain the reasons for the delay. Therefore, we are of the considered opinion that it is fit case to remand the matter back to the file of the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication in accordance with law after affording reasonable opportunity of hearing to the appellant 8. In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee stands partly allowed. Order pronounced in the open court on 23rd June, 2025. Sd/- Sd/- (PRAKASH CHAND YADAV) JUDICIAL MEMBER (INTURI RAMA RAO) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Cochin, Dated: 23rd June, 2025 n.p. 4 ITA No. 768/Coch/2024 Paipra Service Co-op. Bank Ltd. Copy to: 1. The Appellant 2. The Respondent 3. The Pr. CIT concerned 4. The Sr. DR, ITAT, Cochin 5. Guard File By Order Assistant Registrar ITAT, Cochin "