9911796707
TMI Blog2024 (2) TMI 539X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 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. - Shri Ravish Sood, Judicial Member For the Assessee : Shri S.R. Rao, Advocate For the Revenue : Shri Satya Prakash Sharma, Sr. DR ORDER PER RAVISH SO ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... I.T. Act dated 31.12.2019, wherein the CPC has disallowe4 an amount of Rs. 16,47,750/- claimed by the appellant as deduction u/s 80P(2)(a)(i) of the I.T. Act. Since these grounds of appeal are interlinked, these are being adjudicated together. 5.2 The appellant filed its return of income on 25.01.2019 declaring a Total Income of Rs. Nil after claiming deduction of Rs. 16,47,750/- u/s 80P(2)(a)(i) of the I.T. Act. The due date for filing the return of income u/s 139(1) of the I.T. Act for A.Y. 2018-19 was 31.10.2018. The return was processed u/s 143(1) of the 1.T. Act by the CPC by disallowing the deduction claimed by it of Rs. 16,47,750/-. The disallowance was made by the CPC u/s 80AC of the I.T. Act on the grounds that the return of income was not filed within the time specified u/s 139(1) of the I.T. Act. 5.3 Section 80AC of the I.T. Act is reproduced as under:- Deduction not to be allowed unless return furnished Where in computing the total income of an assessee of any previous year relevant to the assessment year commencing on or after (i) . (ii) the 1st day of April, 2018; any deduction is admissible under any provision of Chapter under the heading C. D ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t AR ) for the assessee submitted that the present appeal involves a delay of 530 days. Elaborating on the reasons leading to the delay in filing of the appeal, the Ld. AR submitted that as the assessee society advised by its Chartered Accountant, Shri Arvind Surana, CA that disallowance u/s. 143(1)(a)(v) of the Act was restricted to specific items and amendment provided for disallowance of claim for deduction u/s. 80P was effective from 01.04.2021, therefore, going by the said advise had filed an application seeking rectification of mistake u/s. 154 of the Act with the CPC, Bengaluru. It was submitted by the Ld. AR that assessee s application filed u/s. 154 of the Act was rejected by the CPC, Bengaluru vide its order dated 13.05.2022, which order of the A.O was, thereafter, approved by the CIT(Appeals) vide his order dated 07.09.2022. Elaborating further, it was submitted by the Ld. AR that the assessee had thereafter assailed the order of the CIT(Appeals) by filing an application before the Tribunal on 24.11.2022 which, however, was dismissed by the Tribunal vide its order dated 27.10.2023. Carrying his contention further, the Ld. AR submitted that as the assessee society remain ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Section 154 Application filed 13 13 3 13/05/2022 Section 154 Appln. Rejected 11 24 4. 26/05/2022 1st Appeal filed against rejection of Sec.154 appln 13 37 5. 07/09/2022 Ist appl. Against rejection of sec.154 appln dismissed. 104 141 6. 24/11/2022 2nd appeal filed 78 141 7. 27/10/2023 2nd appeal dismissed 337 556 8. Per contra, the Ld. Departmental Representative (for short DR ) objected to the seeking of condonation of an inordinate delay of 530 days involved in filing of the present appeal by the assessee society. 9. I have thoughtfully considered the contentions advanced by the Ld. AR and would not hesitate to observe that though at the first blush the contention of the Ld. AR of having approached a wrong f ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ng 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). 11. I, thus, on the basis of my aforesaid view do 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. 12. Be that as it may, even if the aforesaid contention of the assessee is accepted, i.e., he had for bonafide reasons wrongly taken recourse to proceedings u/s. 154 of the Act, I am unable to comprehend that after its appeal was dismissed by the Tribunal vide its order passed in ITA No.241/RPR/2022, dated 27.10.2023, what stopped the assessee society from timely carrying before the Tribunal the order of the CIT(Appeals) dated 19.04.2022 specifically when the said appeal was already substa ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... st Bengal Vs. Administrator, Howrah 1972 AIR SC 749, the Hon ble Apex Court had held that the expression sufficient cause should receive a liberal construction so as to advance substantial justice, particularly when there is no motive behind the delay. The expression sufficient cause will always have relevancy to reasonableness. The action which can be condoned by the court should fall within the realm of normal human conduct or normal conduct of a litigant. However, as observed by me hereinabove, as the assessee appellant in the present case had acted in a most callous manner, therefore, there can be no reason to allow its application and condone the delay of 530 days involved in preferring the captioned appeal. In the present case the delay of 530 days cannot be simply condoned on the basis of the unsubstantiated claim of the assessee that the same had occasioned for the bonafide reasons. 15. As observed by the Hon ble Supreme Court in the case of Ramlal, Motilal and Chotelal Vs. Rewa Coalfields Ltd. AIR (1962) 361 (SC) that seeker of justice must come with clean hands, therefore, now when in the present appeal the assessee appellant had failed to come forth with any good ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
