9911796707
TMI Blog2020 (12) TMI 969X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... essee for not filing the appeal within the prescribed time limit before the CIT(A). The delay in filing the appeal before the CIT(A) was solely on account of the clear statement by the Assessing Officer that the demand raised in the assessment order would be kept in abeyance till the final decision is taken by the Hon'ble Apex Court. The assessee was under bonafide belief that the A.O. would pass an order u/s. 154 of the I.T. Act confirming the demand citing the Hon'ble Apex Court judgment before starting recovery action. Therefore, there is 'sufficient cause' for filing appeal belatedly before the CIT(A) and the delay cannot be attributed to any latches on the part of the assessee. - ITA No. 2643/Bang/2019 - - - Dated:- 20-11-2020 - George George K., Member (J) For the Appellant : Ravish Rao, CA For the Respondents : Ganesh R. Ghale, Standing Counsel ORDER George George K., Member (J) This appeal at the instance of the assessee is directed against CIT(A)'s order dated 05.12.2019. The relevant assessment year is 2014-2015. 2. The brief facts of the case are as follow: The assessee is a primary cooperative society registered under ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... orable High Court decision allowing the section 80P in the case of Cooperative Societies is in operation till the final verdict on the issue of deduction u/s. 80P by the Apex Court, the demand so raised on disallowing the claim made u/s. 80P will not be enforced and shall be kept in abeyance . 5. The learned AO has erred in law by not citing any Supreme Court judgment, which she expected and modified her own order, before proceeding to recovery actions. 6. The First Appellate Authority failed to appreciate the fact that the appeal was delayed because the matter was kept in abeyance by the AO herself and there was no order on the AO, fixing the final liability on the Appellant, based on the Supreme judgment which the AO was expecting. 7. The learned Assessing Officer has erred in Law by levying interest to the tune of ₹ 3,66,520/- under section 234A and 2348 of the IT Act 8. For the grounds urged herein above and such other grounds and arguments that may be put forth during the Appellate proceedings this Honorable Court may be pleased to set aside the impugned order as bad in Law. 5. The learned AR reiterated the submissions made before the Income Tax ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ict on the issue of deduction u/s. 80P by the Apex Court, the demand so raised on disallowing the claim made u/s. 80P will not be enforced and shall be kept in abeyance. 7.1. The assessee did not file an appeal before the first appellate authority within the time limit prescribed, on the bonafide belief that the demand that has arisen on account of disallowance of claim u/s. 80P of the I.T. Act would not be enforced and shall be kept in abeyance until the assessment order was rectified by fixing the final liability based on the Hon'ble Supreme Court judgment. However, when recovery proceedings were initially initiated on 01.02.2017, the assessee approached the Assessing Officer and orally it was informed to the assessee that the demand would not be enforced and the notice was issued in usual course along with other cases. It is submitted by the assessee, later in December 2018, when there was threat of attachment of bank accounts and direction to pay atleast 20% of the total demand, the assessee was forced to file appeal before the CIT(A) on 30.01.2019. I am of the view that there was bonafide reasons on the part of the assessee for not filing the appeal within the prescri ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rthy (1998) 7 SCC 123, had held that the primary function of the Court is to adjudicate the dispute between the parties and to advance substantial justice. It was held by the Hon'ble Court that the rules of limitation are not meant to destroy the rights of parties, but to see that parties do not resort to dilatory tactics, and seek their remedy promptly. It was held by the Hon'ble Apex Court that there is no presumption that delay in approaching the Court is always deliberate, and the words sufficient cause u/s. 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963, should receive a liberal construction so as to advance substantial justice. It was further held by the Hon'ble Apex Court that when substantial justice and technical consideration are pitted against each other, the cause of substantial justice deserves to be preferred, for the other side cannot claim to have vested right in injustice being done because of a non-deliberate delay. 7.4. The Hon'ble Telangana High Court in the case of Thunuguntla Jagan Mohan Rao v. DCIT [(2020) 427 ITR 204 (Telangana)] had held that the assessee, an individual, not well versed in law, cannot be faulted with not filing an appeal on time against ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... into account in condoning the delay although there is no general proposition that mistake of counsel by itself is always a sufficient ground. Accordingly, the Hon'ble Apex Court has held that there is a mistake of the counsel end, therefore/the delay in filing the appeal has been condoned. I further noted that similar finding has been expressed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of N. Balakrishnan Vs. Krishnamurthy, reported in AIR 1998 SC 3222. The Tribunal has also considered the vision in the case of Mela Ram and sons Vs. ITA Nos. 3228 to 3234/2013 CIT, reported in 29 ITR 607 (SC) and accordingly, the delay in filing appeal was condoned. The facts in the present case are also similar as in this case also due to mistake of Chartered Accountant the assessee could not file the appeals in time. In view of the above facts and circumstances of the case and in view of the various decisions mentioned above/which was considered by the Tribunal in the case of The Phoenix Mills Ltd. (supra), I condone the delay in filing the present appeals before the Tribunal for all the years. Also heard on merit of the case . 6. In view of the above/it was held by the Coordinate Ben ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
