IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR BEFORE SHRI V. DURGA RAO, JUDICIAL MEMBER SMC MATTER (Assessment Year : 2016–17)

Rajura Nagari Sahakari Pat Sanstha Maryadit, Near Old Bus Stand ……………. Appellant Rajura, Chandrapur 442 905 PAN – AAAAR5884N v/s Income Tax Officer ……………. Respondent Ward–5, Chandrapur Assessee by : Shri Abhay Agrawal Revenue by : Shri Abhay Y. Marathe Date of Hearing – 04/02/2025 Date of Order – 25/02/2025

O R D E R

This appeal by the assessee is emanating from the impugned order dated 02/05/2023, passed by the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi, [―learned CIT(A)‖], for the assessment year 2016–17.

2. In its appeal, the assessee has raised following grounds:–

―1. The order passed by Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre u/s 250 of I.T Act 1961 is illegal, invalid, and bad in law.

2. The learned CIT(A) erred in confirming the action of the learned AO in making disallowance of deduction claimed u/s 80P at Rs. 17,32,958/- as claimed in the Return of Income.

3. The AO and learned CIT(A) ought to have allowed the deduction u/s 80P of the I.T. Act, 1961 as claimed in the Return of Income.

4. The learned CIT(A) erred in not providing sufficient opportunity of being heard, thereby breaching principles of natural justice.

5. The Appellant prays leave of the Hon'ble Tribunal to add, amend, alter any of the Grounds of Appeal.‖

3. During the course of hearing, the Registry has pointed out a delay of 418 days in filing the present appeal before the Tribunal. While going through the record available before us, we find that the assessee has filed affidavit with a request to condone the delay. The contents of the affidavit is extracted below:–

―A. That the order passed by the learned CIT(A) is dated 02/05/2023 which was uploaded on the IT portal. That the due date for filing Appeal was within

60 days from receipt of the aforesaid order i.e 01/07/2023.

B. That the Assessee has filed appeal on 06 September 2024. Thus, there has been a delay of 432 days in filing the Appeal by the Assessee.

Sufficient Cause explaining the delay in filing the Appeal C. That, the Assessee could not represent his case before learned CIT(A). The notices were sent to email-id amohril@gmail.com which belonged to erstwhile consultant. The erstwhile consultant forwarded the mails to assessee's appeal consultant at his email-id cavarathod@gmail.com. It appears that, the appeal consultant did not comply with the notices and also failed inform the assessee about the notices issued. Thus, notices of hearing were not received by the assessee hence, the assessee could not comply with the notices. The assessee was not aware of CIT(A) order passed dated 02/05/2023. The assessee being located in rural area and trustees being layman were not well versed with checking online portal and relied completely on their tax consultants for all their compliances. The assessee operates from Rural Area. Thus, the order passed was inadvertently remained to be brought to the notice of the assessee or its trustees/ executive body.

D. Subsequently demand recovery proceedings were initiated by the local jurisdictional AO office. The assessee changed his old consultant and visited his new consultant to enquire about tax proceedings. It was only then, the new consultant informed the assessee about the passing of an adverse order by learned CIT(A) dated 20/05/2023.

On the advice of his new consultant, the Assessee appointed a new counsel Shri Abhhay N Agrawal, Advocate for filing of appeal. That there was a delay in appointing the Counsel and providing him the necessary documents for drafting of appeal. That, it took considerable time in coordination, follow-up, and filing the appeal. The trustees being layman, does not understand the intricacies of taxation matters. Considering all the factors, there was an inadvertent delay of 432 days in filing the appeal. There was no malafide intention and