2024 (2) TMI 539 - AT - Income Tax

Condonation of delay filling appeal before ITAT - inordinate delay of 530 days involved in filing of the present appeal had crept in because of mistake of the assessee in approaching a wrong forum for seeking redressal of its grievance - entitlement of Deduction u/s 80P - HELD THAT - As it is not a case that the assessee by filing an application u/s. 154 of the Act had approached a wrong forum but a case where the assessee had foregone/ given up his right to carry the order of the CIT(Appeals) approving the intimation u/s. 143(1) by the CPC Bengaluru therefore the claim of assessee under a bonafide belief had approached a wrong forum does not merit acceptance. To sum up as it was the assessee society who had consciously taken a call in not assailing the order of the CIT(Appeals) dated 19.04.2022 wherein declining of its claim for deduction u/s. 80P of the Act by the CPC Bengaluru vide intimation u/s. 143(1) dated 07.06.2019 was approved therefore it is incorrect on the part of the Ld. AR to claim that the assessee had approached a wrong forum/remedy by seeking redressal of its grievance by filing an application u/s. 154 of the Act. It is not a case that the assessee had neither assailed the declining of its claim for deduction u/s. 80P of the Act by the CPC Bengaluru u/s. 143(1)(a) of the Act but it is a case where it had chosen not to carry the same any further in appeal before the Tribunal after its appeal was dismissed by the CIT(Appeals). Thus wo not find favour with the contention of the Ld. AR that the inordinate delay of 530 days involved in filing of the present appeal had crept in because of bonafide mistake of the assessee in approaching a wrong forum for seeking redressal of its grievance. As there was no justifiable reason for the assessee to file the appeal before us after 530 days therefore there appears to be no reason to adopt a liberal view and condone the delay therein involved. Decided against assessee.

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Disallowance of deduction claimed under Section 80P of the Income-tax Act.
2. Confirmation of the impugned intimation order under Section 143(1).
3. Condonation of delay in filing the appeal.

Summary:

1. Disallowance of Deduction Claimed under Section 80P:
The assessee society filed its return of income for A.Y. 2018-19 on 25.01.2019, declaring an income of Rs. Nil after claiming a deduction of Rs. 16,47,750/- under Section 80P(2)(a)(i) of the Income-tax Act. The Centralized Processing Center (CPC), Bengaluru disallowed the deduction under Section 80AC because the return was filed beyond the stipulated time specified under Section 139(1).

2. Confirmation of the Impugned Intimation Order under Section 143(1):
The Commissioner of Income-Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Center (NFAC), upheld the disallowance made by the CPC. The CIT(A) noted that Section 80AC explicitly states that no deduction under Chapter VI A - Section C, including Section 80P, would be allowed if the return is not filed on or before the due date specified under Section 139(1). The CIT(A) confirmed the disallowance as the assessee failed to file the return within the due date and did not provide any reasonable cause for the delay.

3. Condonation of Delay in Filing the Appeal:
The assessee filed an appeal with a delay of 530 days, explaining that it initially sought rectification under Section 154 based on advice that the disallowance was effective from 01.04.2021. The application under Section 154 was rejected by the CPC and subsequently upheld by the CIT(A) and the Tribunal. The assessee claimed it realized the correct remedy was to appeal against the CIT(A)'s order only after the Tribunal's dismissal of the Section 154 application.

The Tribunal found the claim of a bonafide mistake unconvincing, noting that the assessee consciously chose not to appeal the CIT(A)'s order within the stipulated time. The Tribunal observed that the delay was due to the assessee's lackadaisical approach and not a bonafide mistake. Consequently, the Tribunal declined to condone the delay and dismissed the appeal as barred by limitation.

Conclusion:
The appeal was dismissed on the grounds that the assessee failed to file the return within the due date, did not provide a reasonable cause for the delay, and did not appeal the CIT(A)'s order within the stipulated time. The Tribunal declined to condone the delay of 530 days, citing the assessee's lack of a justifiable reason for the delay.