Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Bangalore
Arya Vysya Sri Kannika Parameshwari ... vs Income Tax Officer Ward-1 , Tiptur on 7 September, 2018
IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL
'SMC-C' BENCH, BANGALORE
BEFORE SHRI. SUNIL KUMAR YADAV, JUDICIAL MEMBER
ITA No. 2219/Bang/2018
Assessment year : 2014-15
M/s. Arya Vysya Sri Kannika Vs. The Income-tax Officer,
Parameshwari Co-operative Ward- 1,
Society Ltd., Tiptur.
Arya Vysya Sri Kannika
Parameshwari Sahakara,
Huliyar, Chikkanayakanahalli
Taluk, Tiptur-572 218.
PAN : AAAAA 1218 M
APPELLANT RESPONDENT
Assessee by : Shri. Sandeep C, CA
Revenue by : Shri. Priyadarshi Mishra, JCIT,
Special Range-III
Date of hearing : 14/08/2018
Date of pronouncement : 07/09/2018
O R D E R
Per Sunil Kumar Yadav, JM :
This appeal is preferred by the assessee against the order of the CIT(A), inter alia, on following grounds:
1. That the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) in so far is prejudicial to the interests of the appellant in so far is bad and erroneous to the facts and circumstances of the case.
2. That the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) ought to have condoned the delay and decide the case on merits.ITA No. 2219/Bang/2018 Page 2 of 3
3. That the learned lower authorities erred in law and on facts in not allowing the deduction of Rs. 11,74,007/- claimed u/s. 80P(2)(a)(i) of the Act on the ground that the deduction u/s. 80P of the Act is entitled only to Primary Agricultural Credit Co-operative Society and Primary Agricultural Rural Development Bank and not to the appellant which is a credit co-operative society.
4. That the learned lower authorities erred in law and on facts in disallowing a sum of Rs. 1,26,386/- u/s. 40(a)(ia) of the Act for not deducting the tax at source on the amount paid to pigmy agents even though the CBDT vide Instruction No. 275/25/2007-1T(B) dated 01.12.2011 has clarified that such payments have to be treated as salary and not commission.
Each of the above grounds is without prejudice to one another, the appellant craves the leave of the Hon'ble Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Bangalore to add, delete, amend or otherwise modify all or any of the grounds of appeal either before or at the time of hearing of this appeal.
2. During the course of hearing, the learned Counsel for the assessee has contended that there was delay of 382 days in filing of appeals before the CIT(A). Though the assessee has filed the application for condonation of delay but the CIT(A) was of the view that the delay was not properly explained. He accordingly did not condone the delay and dismissed the appeal being barred by limitation. Now the learned Counsel for the assessee has placed a reliance upon the application for condonation of the delay.
3. The learned DR on the other hand has contended that there was inordinate delay in filing of the appeal before the CIT(A), therefore the condonation of the same was rightly denied by the CIT(A).
4. Having carefully examined the order of the authorities below in the light of rival submission I find that there was inordinate delay of 382 days in ITA No. 2219/Bang/2018 Page 3 of 3 filing of the appeal before the CIT(A). Though the assessee has tried to explain the delay in filing of the appeal but I do not find any merit therein. Therefore, I do not notice any infirmity in the order of the CIT(A). Accordingly, I confirm the same.
5. In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed.
Order pronounced in the open court on this 7th September, 2018.
Sd/- Sd/-
(A. K. GARODIA) (SUNIL KUMAR YADAV)
ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER
Place : Bangalore
Dated : 07/09/2018
/NS/*
Copy to :
1 Appellant 2 Respondent
3 CIT 4 CIT(A)
5. DR 6 Guard file
By order
Senior Private Secretary
Income-tax Appellate Tribunal
Bangalore