TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2024 (2) TMI 539
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....g the deduction claimed u/s 80P of the Act violating provisions of section 143(1)(a) of the Act as applicable to assessment year 2018-19. 2) In the facts and circumstances of the case and in law Id. Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) has erred in confirming the impugned intimation order passed by Centralized Processing Centre, Bengaluru u/s. 143(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 without any provisions enabling such disallowance for assessment year 2018-19. 3) The impugned order is bad in law and on facts. 4) The appellant reserves the right to addition, after or omit all or any of the grounds of appeal in the interest of justice." 2. Succinctly stated, the assessee society had e-filed its return of income for A.Y.2018-19 on 25.01.2019 declaring an income of Rs. Nil. (after claiming deduction of Rs. 16,47,750/- u/s. 80P(2)(a)(i) of the Act). As the return of income filed by the assessee society was beyond the stipulated time period specified u/s. 139(1) of the Act, therefore, the CPC, Bengaluru disallowed its claim for deduction of Rs. 16,47,750/- u/s. 80AC of the Act. 3. Aggrieved the assessee carried the matter in appeal before the CIT(Appeals) but ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e for A.Y. 2018-19 on 25.01.2019, whereas the due date of filing the return of income u/s 139(1) of the I.T. Act was 31.10.2018. Thus, the provisions of section 80AC are attracted in the appellant's case as the return of income for A.Y. 2018-19 has not been filed before the due date i.e. 31.10.2018 and, therefore, the AO has rightly disallowed the deduction claimed u/s. 80P(2)(a)(i) of the I.T. Act of Rs. 16,47,750/-. Although, the appellant has stated in the second ground of appeal that it had a reasonable cause for delay in filing the return of income which was beyond its control. However, the appellant has not submitted or replied to the various notices issued by this office and has also failed to bring anything on record which could prove that it had a reasonable cause for the delay in filing the return of income. Therefore, the disallowance of Rs. 16,47,750/- as per the order u/s 143(1) of the I.T. Act of the CPC is confirmed. 5.6 Accordingly, these grounds of appeal are treated as dismissed, 6. Decision on Ground of Appeal No.5: 6.1 This ground states that the appellant craves leave to add, alter, amend or delete any of the grounds that may be u....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....d that the correct remedy that was available with it for getting its grievance redressed was to prefer an appeal against the order of the CIT(Appeals) upholding the disallowance of its claim for deduction u/s. 80P vide intimation issued u/s. 143(1) of the Act by CPC, Bengaluru before the Tribunal, which, by the time, involved a delay of 530 days. 6. The Ld. AR submitted that as the assessee society had by filing an application for rectification u/s. 154 of the Act dated 02.05.2022, which thereafter, was carried further in appeal upto the Tribunal, had, thus, remaining under a bonafide belief approached wrong forum and for the said reason, not assailed the order of the CIT(Appeals) arising from the intimation issued u/s. 143(1) of the Act dated 07.06.2019 any further in appeal before the Tribunal, therefore, considering the totality of the facts leading to the aforesaid delay, the same in all fairness be condoned. The Ld. AR in support of his aforesaid contention relied on the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Rahimal Bathu & Ors Vs. Ashiyal Beevi, 2023 Live Law (SC) 829 and also that of the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in the case of Resorts Consortium India Li....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ed 07.06.2019 on appeal had merged with the order of the CIT(Appeals), wherein the latter had approved the same vide his order dated 19.04.2022, therefore, the application filed by the assessee u/s. 154 of the Act seeking rectification of the declining of its claim for deduction u/s. 80P vide intimation u/s. 143(1) dated 07.06.2019 was in itself not maintainable. 10. As it is not a case, that the assessee by filing an application u/s. 154 of the Act had approached a wrong forum, but a case where the assessee had foregone/ given up his right to carry the order of the CIT(Appeals) approving the intimation u/s. 143(1) dated 07.06.2019 by the CPC, Bengaluru, therefore, the claim of the Ld. AR that the assessee under a bonafide belief had approached a wrong forum does not merit acceptance. To sum up, as it was the assessee society who had consciously taken a call in not assailing the order of the CIT(Appeals) dated 19.04.2022, wherein declining of its claim for deduction u/s. 80P of the Act by the CPC, Bengaluru vide intimation u/s. 143(1) dated 07.06.2019 was approved, therefore, it is incorrect on the part of the Ld. AR to claim that the assessee had approached a wrong forum/remedy....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ion for condonation of delay has been moved bonafide, then, the Court would normally condone the delay, but where the delay has not been explained at all and in fact there is an unexplained the delay coupled with negligence or sheer carelessness, then, the discretion of the court in such cases would normally tilt against the applicant. Reverting to the facts of the present case, I have already examined the reasons that had led to the inordinate delay, which has not been explained by the assessee to have occasioned due to bonafide reasons. As observed by me hereinabove, as there was no justifiable reason for the assessee to file the appeal before me after 530 days, therefore, there appears to be no reason to adopt a liberal view and condone the delay therein involved. Also, I may observe at this juncture that the law of limitation has to be construed strictly as it has an effect of vesting on one and taking away the right from the other party. The delay in filing of the appeals cannot be condoned in a mechanical or a routine manner since that would undoubtedly jeopardize the legislative intent behind Section 5 of the Limitation Act. 14. I may herein observe that in the case of St....