TMI Blog2023 (2) TMI 301X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Souhard SahakariNiyamit [ 2023 (2) TMI 158 - ITAT BANGALORE] the ratio decided in all these judgments are squarely applicable in the present facts of the case. Accordingly the assessee is not eligible to claim of deduction u/s 80P of the Act. Accordingly, the grounds raised by the assessee are dismissed. - ITA Nos.1044 & 1045/Bang/2022 - - - Dated:- 31-1-2023 - Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu, Accountant Member For the Assessee : Shri. Sandeep, CA For the Revenue : Shri.Ganesh R Gale, Standing Counsel. ORDER These are two appeals filed by the assessee against the separate order passed by the National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi, dated 12.12.2021 for Assessment Year 2018-19 and 10.12.2021 for the Assessment Year 2019-20 respectively. 2. Since the issue involved in both the appeals are similar for disallowing the claim of deduction under section 80P(2)of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter called the Act ), and in respect of ITA No.1044/Bang/2022, the CIT(A) has not accepted the delay for filing appeal by 410 days. Since the issue of deduction claimed by assessee under section 80P of the Act is similar in both the years, therefore for the sake of conven ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the disallowance of deduction u/s 80P(2) of the Act for not filing the return of income within the due date will not fall under the purview of S. 143(1) of the Act. Each of the above grounds is without prejudice to one another, the appellant seeks the leave of the Hon'ble Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Bangalore to add, delete, amend or modify otherwise each or any of the grounds of appeal either before or at the time of hearing this appeal 2.2 The grounds of appeal in ITA No.1045/Bang/2022 is as under:- 1. That the order of the learned Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) in so far it is prejudicial to the interests of the appellant is bad and erroneous in law and against the facts and circumstances of the case. That the learned Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) ought to have held that the appellant is a Co-operative Society registered under Karnataka State Co-operative Societies Act 1959 and therefore, liable for audit u/s 63 of the said Act consequently Explanation (2) Clause (a)(ii) read with clause (b) of 5.139(1) of the Act. That the learned Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) ought to have held that the due date for filing the return of inco ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nt has also been filed citing the reasons for such non compliance . The CIT(A) also observed that the assessee is filing return since 2016-17 electronically and the case for AY 20167-17 and 2017-18 the scrutiny assessments u/s 143(3) was done. We further observe that the scrutiny assessments for the assessment year 2017-18 was completed on 29/12/2019, whereas for the impugned assessment year the due date for filing return of income was much prior to scrutiny assessments and the assessee was actively participated in the scrutiny assessments during the same period. The reasons given for delay in filing appeal before the CIT(A) was negligence and deliberate in action on the part of the appellant and issue involved in the preceding years was also the same and the assessee was understanding the legal position and the appropriate course of remedy available under the act was in the knowledge of the assessee. 4. After observing the above, the CIT(A) for want of proper reasonable cause from the assessee side for filing delay in appeal did not condone the delay and dismissed the appeal of the assessee in above terms. 5. Aggrieved from the order of the CIT(A), the assessee filed appeal ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ively. When we reviewed our mail inbox the same was found. Based on these events, we consulted the Chartered Accountants, and I was explained that due to the change in appeal proceedings to Faceless Appeal Scheme during 2021, no manual notices will be issued, and no physical hearing will be conducted which was recurring proceedings for earlier years. We also observed that the Income Tax portal was revamped in June 2021, and we could not find these notices whenever we logged in as they were not updated or due to some technical glitches in the portal. Therefore, the CIT(A) orders were not noticed, and appeals couldn't be filed within the time. It is prayed that the Hon'ble Income Tax Appellate Tribunal be pleased to condone the delay as there was sufficient and reasonable cause for delay in filing the appeals. 7. We have heard the rival submission of both the parties and after pursing of the materials placed before us and we are satisfied that the delay in filing the appeal was due to reasonable and sufficient cause and the delay in filing the appeal deserves to be condoned. We accordingly condone the delay in filing the appeal after relying on the judgment of Hon bl ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... er section 80P(2) of the Act. 10. The learned DR relied on the order of the lower authorities and he submitted that the CIT(A) has rightly deleted the appeal of the assessee . The ld.DR further submitted that the assessee s approach for explaining the delay before the CIT(A) is very casual manner. The assessee has not explained with the cogent materials before the CIT(A) for delay in filing the appeal. The assessee is filing return of income regularly for the previous assessment years and he attended the scrutiny proceedings before the AO it clearly shows that he was well aware of the income-tax Act for the further proceedings. The response was filed by the assessee on 11/01/2020 whereas the intimation was issued on 31/05/2019, which was served upon the assessee on 05/06/2019 . The allegation made by the assessee that the CPC failed to consider the response made through portal is also baseless because the CPC before making any adjustments u/s 143(1) a notice is sent to the assessee after giving due time for responding the notice. After the receipt of response and considering the same, the return is processed and intimation is sent to the assessee. In support of his argument the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ould have been mentioned in the relevant expression in Section 80AC of the Act which would have included within its sweep the extended period under sub-section (4) thereof. But in such provision referring only to sub-section (1) of Section 139 of the Act, the reference to the other provisions of Section 139 must be understood to have been excluded. 11. Since the legal issue raised by the appellant is directly covered in the judgment of Shelcon Properties P. Ltd. (supra) and the view expressed therein does not require to be revisited notwithstanding the aberration in the case of S.R. Batliboi Associates (supra), the appeal is dismissed at the admission stage. ITAT No.385 of 2016 and GA No.690 of 2018 stand dismissed Therefore, the lower authorities have rightly disallowed deduction claimed by the assessee. 12. After hearing the rival contentions, I observed that the CIT(A) has dismissed the appeal of the assessee for want of proper reason for explaining the condonation of delay by the assessee. I observed that during the course of appellate proceedings, the assessee filed application for seeking condonation of delay cited supra vide his application dated 12.08.2020. From ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... for deduction as per section 80P of the Act. 15. The learned DR relied on the order of the lower authorities and also reiterated the submissions made on merits of the case in ITA No.1044/Bang/2022 and assessee s own case for previous Assessment Year cited supra. 16. At the outset of hearing it was observed that the assessee has filed appeal belatedly before the ITAT by 162 days. The delay has been duly explained by the assessee in para no. 05 in ITA No. 1044/Bang/2022 cited supra and in para No. 06 the delay has been condoned by me. The same proposition will apply in this appeal also , according I condone the delay. 17. After hearing the rival contention I observed from the facts of the case that the assessee filed return of income on 26.10.2019 claiming deduction u/s 80P of the I.T. Act of Rs. 18,97,111/-. The due date for filing income tax return was extended as per order No. 225/157/2019/ITA.II, dated 27.09.2019 upto the 31.10.2019 for those assessees who were facing difficulties for filling income tax returns as well as all reports of audit. But in the impugned case the assessee has not filed any audit report along with the income tax return. Before me the assessee ha ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
