TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2025 (1) TMI 1711
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
..... That the Ld. C.I.T. (A), NFAC, erred on facts and in law in not allowing deduction u/s SOP of Chapter VI-A of I. T. Act of Rs. 3,27,99,144/- and in doing so failed to consider that the return was filed within the extended due date prescribed by CBDT. 3. That Ld. C.I.T. (A) NFAC had further erred on facts and in law in incorrectly stating that the Return was filed beyond the time limit specified u/s 139(1) of I.T. Act and thereby erroneously invoked the provisions of Section 80AC and upheld the disallowance of deduction as incorrect claim by way of adjustment u/s 143(1)(a)(ii) of I. T. Act. 4. That the addition confirmed is highly excessive, contrary to the facts, law and principle of natural justice and without providing sufficient time and opportunity to have its say on the reasons relied upon by CIT(A)." (B) This appeal has been filed beyond time limit prescribed u/s 253(3) of the I. T. Act. As per noting of the Registry, the appeal is time barred by 6 days. An application was filed from the assessee's side for condonation of delay on the ground that the Secretary of the appellant society was on election duty. An affidavit has also been filed from the a....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ailed to the assessee in both of the languages i.e. in English and in Hindi and hence the argument of misunderstanding the matter is also not acceptable for delay in filing of appeal. Further, the COVID-19 in our country broke out in the month of March, 2020 and lockdown was upto the month of May, 2020, whereas the appeal in this case was filed on 04/06/2022. Hence, the reason for delay of 551 days in filing of this appeal is not tenable and is nothing but ignorance of law. 4.2. In this context, it is submitted the well-established fact that ignorance of law cannot constitute an excuse. It cannot be permitted to plead ignorance as a defence to escape the rigors of law. There are various judicial pronouncements which laid down the principle for condonation of delay. The basic essence of all the judgments is that delay should not be malafide and there should not be any negligence on the part of the appellant. Some of the decisions to understand the issue are as under: If the appellant has acted diligently then normally the delay gets condoned. However, if the delay is caused due to negligence on the part of the appellant, it becomes difficult to get the delay condon....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....n filing the Special Leave Petition, the application for condonation of delay was dismissed. 7. Similarly, in the case of Collector of Central Excise, Madras v. A.MD. Bilal & Amp. Co. [1999 (108) Excise Law Times 331 (SC)], the Supreme Court declined to condone the delay of 502 days in filing the appeal because there was no satisfactory or reasonable explanation rendered for condonation of delay. 8. In the case of Joint Commissioner of Income-tax*, Special Range-1, Chennai v. Tractors & Farm Equipments Ltd. [2007] 104 ITD 149 (CHENNAI) (TM) IN THE ITAT CHENNAI BENCH 'B' (THIRD MEMBER) on AUGUST 11, 2006 held that - "In the present case, I find that the assessee justified the delay only with reference to the affidavit of Shri M.L.S. Rao, Director of the Company. In the said affidavit, Mr. Rao stated that the Commissioner (Appeals)'s order was misplaced and forgotten. It was found while sorting out the unwanted papers. Thereafter steps were taken for the preparation of the appeal. Consequently, the delay was caused. This clearly shows that the delay was due to the negligence and inaction on the part of the assessee. The assessee could have very ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....f the I.T. Act and also filed its appeal against the intimation order u/s. 143(1) of the Act with very much delay. In the appeal under consideration, there is delay of 551 days in e-filing of said appeal and the cause of delay given by the appellant shows ignorance of law, which cannot constitute an excuse. The behavior of the assessee could be termed as personified inaction and negligence which would not constitute reasonable cause. In view of the above discussion, the request for condonation of delay is rejected. Accordingly, the appeal of the appellant is not maintainable in view of the provisions of the sections 249(2) of the IT Act. 4.6. Without prejudice to the above, the present appeal is not sustainable even on merit also as the appellant filed its ITR for A.Y. 2019-20 beyond the due date prescribed by section 139(1) of the I.T. Act and the amendment to the Section 80AC of the I.T. Act with effect from 01.04.2018 mandated that for an assessee to get a deduction under Section 80P of the IT Act, it had to furnish a return of its income for such assessment year on or before the due date specified in Section 139(1) of the IT Act. In other words, after 01.04.2018, even ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....appeal before CIT(Appeals) NFAC and the Ld. CIT(A) confirmed the adjustment made by CPC by disallowance of deduction u/s 80P. The Ld. CIT(A) NFAC held that since the ITR for AY 2019-20 has not been filed within the due date prescribed u/s 139(1) of IT Act and thus the adjustment made by CPC u/s 143(1)(a)(ii) as 'incorrect claim' is proper and further held that deduction will also not be available to assessee society due to applicability of section 80AC of IT Act which blocks the deduction u/s 80P if return is not filed within due date. The Ld. CIT(A) while dismissing the appeal of the assessee held at para 4.6 as under: "the present appeal is not sustainable even on merit also as the appellant filed its ITR for AY 2019-20 beyond the due date prescribed by section 139(1) of the I. T. Act and the amendment to the Section 80AC of the I. T. Act with effect from 01.04.2018 mandated that for an Assessee to get a deduction under Section 80P of the IT Act, it had to furnish a return of its income for such an assessment year on or before the due date specified in Section 139(1) of the IT Act. In other words, after 01.04.2018, even if the assessee makes this claim f....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ous application no. 665 of 2021, the Hon'ble Supreme Court vide order dated 23.09.2021 extended the period of limitation w.e.f. 15.03.2020 till 02.10.2021. Again through miscellaneous application no. 21 of 2022 the Hon'ble Supreme Court vide order dated 10.01.2022 further extended the period of limitation w.e.f. 15.03.2020 till 28.02.2022. It is further prayed that the Hon'ble SC in para 5(III) of the order dated 10.01.22 have held as under: "In cases where the limitation would have expired during the period between 15.03.2020 till 28.02.2022, notwithstanding the actual balance period of limitation remaining, all persons shall have a limitation period of 90 days from 01.03.2022. In the event the actual balance period of limitation remaining, with effect from 01.03.2022 greater than 90 days, that longer period shall apply" Accordingly, the Hon'ble Court also directed that notwithstanding the actual balance period of limitation remaining, all persons shall have a limitation period of 90 days from 01.03.2022. Thus, in the instant case, the limitation period for filing the appeal gets extended till 31.05.2022 as per the relaxation permitted by Sup....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... (Rajarajeswari R) Under Secretary to the Government of India Copy to: - 1. PS to F.M./OSD to FM/PS to MOS(F) 2. PS to Finance/Revenue Secretary 3. Chairman (CBDT), All Members, CBDT 4. All Pr.CCsIT/CCsIT/Pr.DsGIT/DsGIT 5. All Joint Secretaries/CsIT, CBDT 6. Directors/Deputy Secretaries/Under Secretaries of Central Board of Direct Taxes 7. ADG(Systems)-4 with a request to place the order on official income-tax website 8. CIT (M&TP), Official Spokesperson of CBDT with a request to publicise widely 9. Addl. CIT, Data Base Cell for placing it on irsofficers website 10. The Institute of Chartered Accountants of India, IP Estate, New Delhi 11. All Chambers of Commerce -sd/- (Rajarajeswari R.) Under Secretary to the Government of India (D.1) The learned A.R. for the assessee, further drew our attention to the order of Hon'ble Supreme Court dated 10/01/2022 in support of his contention that the actual delay was of only 4 days and not of 551 days as erroneously observed by the learned CIT(A). The aforesaid order of Hon'ble Supreme Court is reproduced below for....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....assed by this Hon'ble Court in M.A. no. 665 of 2021 in Suo Motu Writ Petition (C) NO. 3 of 2020; and iii. pass such other order or orders as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper. 5. Taking into consideration the arguments advanced by learned counsel and the impact of the surge of the virus on public health and adversities faced by litigants in the prevailing conditions, we deem it appropriate to dispose of the M.A. No. 21 of 2022 with the following directions: I. The order dated 23.03.2020 is restored and in continuation of the subsequent orders dated 08.03.2021, 27.04.2021 and 23.09.2021, it is directed that the period from 15.03.2020 till 28.02.2022 shall stand excluded for the purposes of limitation as may be prescribed under any general or special laws in respect of all judicial or quasi- judicial proceedings. II. Consequently, the balance period of limitation remaining as on 03.10.2021, if any, shall become available with effect from 01.03.2022. III. In cases where the limitation would have expired during the period between 15.03.2020 till 28.02.2022, notwithstanding the actual balance period of limitation remaining, a....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
...., the assessee's return showing nil income was processed by Centralized Processing Center (CPC) of Income Tax Department, u/s 143(1) of the Act, and intimation was issued by CPC to the assessee, u/s 143(1) of the Act, wherein the assessee's claim for deduction u/s 80P of the Act was disallowed. The assessee filed appeal in the office of the Ld. CIT(A). Vide impugned appellate order dated 07/02/2024, the Ld. CIT(A) dismissed assessee's appeal on the ground that the assessee failed to filed the return of income within the due date satisfied u/s 139(1) of the Act. The Ld. CIT(A) has also observed in his impugned appellate order that First Appellate Authority was not invested with powers of condoning the delay of filing of return of income. The relevant portion of the impugned appellate order dated 07/02/2024 of the Ld. CIT(A) is reproduced as under: - "4.1 Ground Nos. 1 to 5: The appellant has raised five grounds of appeal. However, the main issue raised by the appellant is the disallowance of deduction u/s 80P by the AO, - CPC, Bengaluru which has been challenged by the appellant on the following grounds. (i)The Return of Income was not filed wi....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... legislature with respect to such cases is very clear that the remedy in such situation lies in the section 119 of the Act. 4.2 At this stage, it will be relevant to reproduce the relevant provisions of section 143(1) of the Act which is as under: (a) The total income or loss shall be computed after making the following adjustment, namely- (i) Any arithmetical error in the return: (ii) An incorrect claim, if such incorrect claim is apparent from any information in the return (iii) Disallowance of loss claimed, if return of the previous year for which set off of loss is claimed was furnished beyond the due date specified under sub-section (1) of section 139; (iv) Disallowance of expenditure indicated in the audit report but not taken into account in computing the total income in the return; (v) Disallowance of deduction claimed under section 10AA, 80IA, 80IAB, 80IB, 80IC, 80ID or section 80IE if the return is furnished beyond the due date-specified under sub-section(1) of section 139; or (vi) Addition of income appearing in Form 26AS or form 16A or Form 16 which h....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... C of Chapter VIA would be admissible only if return of income in that case were filed within prescribed due date Held, yes, whether thus, no - Claim under any provisions of Part C of Chapter VIA would be admissible in case of a belated return Held, Yes. Section 143 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 Assessment General (Intimation under section 143(1)(a)) Assessment Year 2018-19, Whether scope of an intimation under section 143(1)(a), extends only to making adjustments based upon errors apparent from return of income and patent from record Held, yes (in favour of revenue)." The Hon'ble Court has noted that the provisions of section 80AC are very clear in the sense that the any deduction claimed under Part C of Chapter VIA would be admissible only if return of income is filed within prescribed due - date. As the date of filing of return of income is apparent from the return itself, the AO CPC, could easily draw an inference whether the claim of deduction is admissible in accordance with the provisions of section 80AC of the Act which is a basically a mechanical exercise and falls within purview of section 143(1)(a) of the Act. Further, in a latest decision in....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... Court ("HC") of Karnataka which had earlier allowed carry forward of such losses. The Hon'ble SC held that the requirement of filing a declaration within a timeline is "mandatory" in nature as per the language of the provision. It reiterated the age-old principle that a taxing statute should be read as it is and held that the exemption/ deduction provisions should be "strictly" and "literally" complied with and, therefore, a strict interpretation should be adopted. 4.7 The appellant has relied on the following case laws (i) Order of the NFAC in Appeal no.NFAC/2018-19/10140506, dated 29/10/2020 in the case of Hardoi District Cane Growers Co-operative Society - Ltd for A.Y. 2019-20. (ii) Order of NFAC in Appeal no.NFAC/2018-19/10098136, dated 11/08/2023 in the case of Sahkari Ganna Vikas Samiti Ltd for A.Y.2019-20. (iii) Order of NFAC in Appeal no.NFAC/2018-19/10014459, dated 12/04/2022 in the case of Sahkari Ganna Vikas Samiti Ltd, Puranpur for A.Y. 2018-19. However in view of the express provisions contained in section 119(2)(b) and the decision of the Hon. Madras High Court quoted above the decision relied upon by the appellant is ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....that the assessee's return of income was filed belatedly. Therefore, we set aside the impugned appellate order dated 07/02/2024 of the Ld. CIT(A), and we direct the Assessing Officer to allow the deduction u/s 80P of the Act to the assessee in accordance with law. The grounds of appeal are treated as disposed of in accordance with aforesaid direction. (D.3) Learned Sr. D.R. for Revenue relied on the aforesaid impugned appellate order of the learned CIT(A). (E) After perusal of the records and hearing the representatives of both the sides, it is found that undisputedly there was delay of 4 days in filing of the appeal by the appellant assessee in the office of the learned CIT(A). However, the learned CIT(A) has erroneously observed that the delay was of 551 days. In view of the foregoing, the impugned appellate order dated 11/03/2024 of the learned CIT(A) is set aside and he is directed to pass fresh order in accordance with law on the issue of assessee's request for condonation of delay. For this purpose the learned CIT(A) is directed to respectfully follow the aforesaid order dated 10/01/2022 of Hon'ble Supreme Court. Further if the learned CIT(A) deems it proper....