TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
of 
of 
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of of 
All Case Laws
of of All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of <h1>Appeal Dismissed Due to Delay; Claims for Deductions and Disallowance Rejected Without Detailed Explanation.</h1> The appeal was dismissed due to a 382-day delay in filing before CIT(A), which was not condoned due to lack of merit in the explanations provided. The ... Delay of 382 days in filing of appeals before the CIT(A) - HELD THAT:- There was inordinate delay of 382 days in filing of the appeal before the CIT(A). Though the assessee has tried to explain the delay in filing of the appeal but do not find any merit therein. Therefore, do not notice any infirmity in the order of the CIT(A). Accordingly, confirm the same. Appeal of the assessee is dismissed. Issues Involved:Delay in filing appeals before CIT(A), Condonation of delay, Deduction u/s. 80P(2)(a)(i) of the Act, Disallowance u/s. 40(a)(ia) of the ActDelay in filing appeals before CIT(A):The appeal was filed by the assessee against the CIT(A)'s order, citing a delay of 382 days in filing the appeals before the CIT(A). The assessee had applied for condonation of the delay, but the CIT(A) refused to condone it, leading to the dismissal of the appeal as barred by limitation. The Counsel for the assessee argued for the condonation of delay based on the application submitted. However, the DR contended that the delay was significant and rightly denied condonation. The Judicial Member examined the situation and found the delay to be inordinate, with no merit in the explanations provided by the assessee. Consequently, the Judicial Member upheld the CIT(A)'s decision not to condone the delay, resulting in the dismissal of the appeal.Deduction u/s. 80P(2)(a)(i) of the Act:The appellant claimed a deduction of Rs. 11,74,007/- under section 80P(2)(a)(i) of the Act. The issue arose as the lower authorities disallowed this deduction, stating that it is only entitled to Primary Agricultural Credit Co-operative Society and Primary Agricultural Rural Development Bank, not to the appellant, which is a credit co-operative society. The appellant contested this disallowance, arguing for the deduction claimed. However, the learned lower authorities did not allow the deduction based on their interpretation of the law. The judgment did not provide further details on the specific reasoning behind disallowing the deduction.Disallowance u/s. 40(a)(ia) of the Act:Another issue in the appeal was the disallowance of a sum of Rs. 1,26,386/- under section 40(a)(ia) of the Act. This disallowance was due to the failure to deduct tax at source on the amount paid to pigmy agents. The appellant argued that the CBDT had clarified that such payments should be treated as salary, not commission, and therefore, no tax deduction was required. However, the lower authorities disallowed this amount, citing the failure to deduct tax at source. The judgment did not elaborate on the specific reasons behind the disallowance or provide further analysis on this issue.This judgment primarily focused on the delay in filing the appeals before the CIT(A) and the subsequent dismissal of the appeal due to the inordinate delay. The issues regarding the deduction claimed under section 80P(2)(a)(i) of the Act and the disallowance under section 40(a)(ia) of the Act were briefly mentioned without detailed analysis or reasoning provided in the judgment.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
