Tribunal Condones Delay, Allows Appeals for 2012-13 & 2014-15; Disallowance of Deduction Beyond Scope of Adjustment.

The Tribunal ruled in favor of the assessee, condoning the delay in filing appeals for the assessment years 2012-13 and 2014-15. It held that the disallowance of deduction under section 80P(2)(d) by CPC under section 143(1)(a) was beyond the permissible scope of adjustment. Consequently, the appeals were allowed, while the appeal for 2013-14 was dismissed as withdrawn.

---

---

Issues:
1. Delay in filing appeals for assessment years 2012-13 & 2014-15 before CIT(A).
2. Disallowance of claim of deduction u/s. 80P(2)(d) by CPC under section 143(1)(a).
3. Bonafide belief of the assessee regarding the delay in filing appeals.
4. Scope of adjustment under section 143(1)(a) for disallowance of deduction u/s. 80P.

Detailed Analysis:
1. The appeals were filed by the assessee against the orders of additional/JCIT(A) for the assessment years 2012-13, 2013-14, and 2014-15 regarding the disallowance of deduction u/s. 80P(2)(d). The appeal for the year 2013-14 was withdrawn by the assessee as the disallowance was rectified under section 154 before the CPC. However, the appeals for the years 2012-13 & 2014-15 were dismissed by CIT(A) due to significant delays in filing the appeals.

2. The delay in filing the appeals was attributed to the pending rectification application u/s. 154 before the AO/CPC by the assessee. The counsel argued that there was a bonafide belief that the rectification would resolve the issue, and hence, the appeals were not filed earlier. The delay was further explained through an affidavit from the secretary of the society. The counsel contended that similar relief granted for 2013-14 raised hopes for the other years as well.

3. The main contention on merits was the disallowance of deduction u/s. 80P(2)(d) by CPC under section 143(1)(a) on interest received from a Co-operative Bank. The assessee argued that such disallowance was beyond the scope of section 143(1) and was supported by tribunal decisions and High Court rulings. The Departmental Representative (DR) countered by highlighting the delays in filing the appeals and suggested that the appeals should have been filed despite the pending rectification application.

4. After hearing both parties and examining the facts, the Tribunal found that the delay in filing the appeals was justified due to the bonafide belief of the assessee that the rectification application would resolve the issue. Additionally, it was established that the adjustment made by CPC under section 143(1)(a) for disallowance of deduction u/s. 80P was beyond the permissible scope of adjustment. The Tribunal held that the disallowance was not valid under the law and accordingly, allowed the appeals for the assessment years 2012-13 & 2014-15, while dismissing the appeal for 2013-14 as withdrawn.

In conclusion, the Tribunal ruled in favor of the assessee, condoning the delay in filing appeals and holding the disallowance of deduction u/s. 80P(2)(d) by CPC under section 143(1)(a) as beyond the scope of adjustment, thereby allowing the appeals for the relevant assessment years.

---