Arjuna Souhardha Pathina Sahakari Niyamitha Vs DCIT (ITAT Bangalore)
In the case of Arjuna Souhardha Pathina Sahakari Niyamitha Vs DCIT (ITAT Bangalore), the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) directed the Assessing Officer (AO) to reconsider the deduction under Section 80P of the Income Tax Act. The appeal was initially delayed by 112 days, but the ITAT condoned the delay, citing reasonable cause and the absence of malafide intentions from the assessee. The Tribunal noted that the lower authorities did not consider recent Supreme Court rulings, such as Mavilayi Service Co-operative Bank Ltd. v. CIT, which were relevant to the case. The ITAT remanded the matter back to the AO to review the claim in light of these decisions and also directed that the interest on fixed deposits, if not allowed under Section 80P(2)(d), should be evaluated under Section 57. The appeals were allowed for statistical purposes, highlighting the need for a thorough examination in accordance with the Supreme Court’s judgments.
FULL TEXT OF THE ORDER OF ITAT BANGALORE
Present appeals arise out of a consolidated order passed by Ld.CIT(A)-11, Bangalore for A.Ys. 2015-16 and 2018-19.
2. At the outset, the Ld.AR submitted that there was delay of 112 days in filing both the appeals before the Ld.CIT(A) which was not condoned. The reason that caused the delay is reproduced in the impugned order at page 3. It is submitted by the Ld.AR that the assessee was advised by the erstwhile authorised representative to pay the demand and that there was no redressal mechanism available against such assessment order. It is stated therein that the assessee thereafter approached another tax consultant who advised the assessee to file appeal, that causing the delay. The Ld.AR submitted that, the assessee diligently filed the appeal immediately upon receipt of the advise from another consultant and there is no malafide intention on behalf of the assessee, though belatedly. He thus prayed for the remission of the issues to be considered on merits.
