SANT TUKDOJI NAGRI SHAHKARI PAT SANSTHA LIMITED, HINGANGHAT,HINGANGHAT V. .ITO WARD - 2, WARDHA

ITA 356/NAG/2024

AI Insights

The case involves Sant Tukdoji Nagri Sahakari Pat Sanstha Ltd., which appealed against the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) at the National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi. The primary contention was the dismissal of their appeal due to a delay of 132 days in filing, which the CIT(A) did not condone. The Tribunal found that the assessee was prevented from filing the appeal in time due to reasonable cause and thus condoned the delay of 209 days in filing the present appeal before the Tribunal. The Tribunal decided to set aside the CIT(A)'s order and remand the case back for a fresh decision on the merits, emphasizing the need for adherence to principles of natural justice.

• Counselvise Citation: [2024] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 474335 (ITAT-NAGPUR)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 20-12-2024
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: DB
• Assessment Year: 2020-2021
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act 1961
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: ABHAY Y. MARATHE
• Assessee Lawyers: KISHORE P. DEWANI
• Keywords: Condonation of delay; Set aside; Opportunity of being heard; Reasonable cause; Principle of natural justice
• Section: 144; 234B

Judgement Text

" IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR BEFORE SHRI V. DURGA RAO, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI K.M. ROY, ACCOUNTANT, MEMBER ITA no.356/Nag./2024 (Assessment Year : 2020–21) Sant Tukdoji Nagri Sahakari Pat Sanstha Ltd., 37, Nandori Road Hinganghat 442 301 PAN–AACAS0241C ……………. Appellant v/s Income Tax Officer Ward–2, Wardha ……………. Respondent Assessee by : Shri Kishore P. Dewani Revenue by : Shri Abhay Y. Marathe Date of Hearing – 05/12/2024 Date of Order – 20/12/2024 O R D E R PER V. DURGA RAO, J.M. Captioned appeal by the assessee is against the impugned order dated 06/06/2023, passed by the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi, [“learned CIT(A)”], for the assessment year 2020–21. 2. In its appeal, the assessee has raised following grounds:– “1. The learned CIT(A) erred in not condoning the nominal delay of 132 days without considering application for condonation of delay. Order passed by CIT(A) is not in accordance with law. 2. The learned CIT(A) ought to have condoned the delay in terms of application for condonation of delay and adjudicated the various grounds on merits. Dismissal of appeal is not in accordance with law. 2 Sant Tukdoji Nagri Sahakari Pat Sanstha Ltd. 3. The order passed by A.O. u/s 144 r.w.s. 144B of I.T. Act 1961 is illegal, invalid and bad in law. 4. The income assessed by A.O. at Rs.78,52,056/- is illegal, invalid and bad in law. 5. The addition made by A.O. at Rs.78,52,056/- by denying benefit of deduction claimed u/s 80P(2)(a) (i) of I.T. Act 1961 is illegal, invalid and bad in law. 6. The learned A.O. erred in holding that assessee Credit Co- operative Society is a Co-operative Bank to deny the benefits of deduction as claimed u/s 80P(2)(a) (i) of I.T. Act 1961. 7. The learned A.O. erred in invoking provisions of section 80P(4) of I.T. Act 1961 for making disallowance of deduction u/s 80P(2)(a)(i) of I.T. Act 1961 at Rs.78,52,056/-. 8. The learned A.O. ought to have held that assessee is a Credit Co- operative Society eligible for benefit of section u/s 80P(2)(a)(i) of I.T. Act 1961 and thus addition made is unjustified and bad in law. 9. The assessee denies liability to pay interest under section 234A, 234B and 234C of I.T. Act 1961. Without prejudice, levy of interest under section 234A, 234C and 234C of I.T. Act 1961 is unjustified, unwarranted and excessive. 10. Any other ground that shall be prayed at the time of hearing.” 3. Before us, at the very outset, the Registry has pointed out a delay of 209 days in filing the present appeal before the Tribunal. The assessee has filed application dated nil requesting the Bench for condoning the delay in filing the present appeal before the Tribunal. The reason for the delay in filing the present appeal has been mentioned in the said application. In support of the application for condonation of delay, the assessee has also filed Affidavit duly sworn. 4. After considering the reasons stated in the application for condonation of delay and averments made in the affidavit, we are of the opinion that the assessee is prevented in filing the appeal belatedly and we are satisfied that the delay in filing the appeal is due to reasonable cause. Consequently, we 3 Sant Tukdoji Nagri Sahakari Pat Sanstha Ltd. condone the delay of 209 days in filing the present appeal and admit the same for adjudication on merit. 5. Now, before coming to the merits of the case, during the course of hearing, the learned Counsel for the assessee submitted that the learned CIT(A) has dismissed the assessee’s appeal on the ground that there is delay of 132 days in filing the appeal before him. He, therefore, prayed that the appeal may be restored to the file of the learned CIT(A) for adjudication of the issues raised on merits and in accordance with law and to enable the assessee to substantiate its case. 6. The learned Departmental Representative relied on the order of the authorities below. 7. We have heard the rival arguments, perused the material available on record and gone through the orders of the authorities below. In this case, we find that there is a delay 132 days in filing the appeal before the learned CIT(A) and the assessee has not furnished Affidavit explaining the delay before the learned CIT(A) and resultantly the learned CIT(A) was justified in dismissing the belated appeal filed by the assessee. However, in the interest of justice and also by following the principles of natural justice, we are of the opinion that the assessee deserves one opportunity to establish its case before the learned CIT(A). Consequently, we set aside the impugned order passed by the learned CIT(A) and restore the entire matter to his file for denovo adjudication on merit and in accordance with law. The assessee is also directed to furnish Affidavit explaining the delay in filing the appeal 4 Sant Tukdoji Nagri Sahakari Pat Sanstha Ltd. before the learned CIT(A) by adducing proper evidence. Needless to say that the learned CIT(A) shall provide reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee before adjudication of issues on merit and pass order in accordance with law. 8. In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced in the open Court on 20/12/2024 Sd/- K.M. ROY ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Sd/- V. DURGA RAO JUDICIAL MEMBER NAGPUR, DATED: 20/12/2024 Copy of the order forwarded to: (1) The Assessee; (2) The Revenue; (3) The PCIT / CIT (Judicial); (4) The DR, ITAT, Nagpur; and (5) Guard file. True Copy By Order Pradeep J. Chowdhury Sr. Private Secretary Sr. Private Secretary ITAT, Nagpur "