👍Non-cognizance of Income Tax Demand Orders and Tax Position by Old Accountant: ITAT Condones Delay of 217 Days prior to COVID Period

Read More: https://www.taxscan.in/non-cognizance-of-income-tax-demand-orders-and-tax-position-by-old-accountant-itat-condones-delay-of-217-days-prior-to-covid-period/275740/

Clipped from: https://www.taxscan.in/non-cognizance-of-income-tax-demand-orders-and-tax-position-by-old-accountant-itat-condones-delay-of-217-days-prior-to-covid-period/275740/

By Aparna. M – On May 8, 2023 12:00 pm – 2 mins read

The Ahmedabad bench of Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) recently while condoning the delay of 217 days prior to covid period, observed that old accountant filed the returns without consideration of income tax demand orders and tax position.

In the aforesaid case assessee is a registered cooperative housing society under Gujarat Cooperative Act, 1961. Assessee maintains regular books of accounts and other record which was subject to cooperative audit.

After filing the return assessee’s  return was processed under Section 143(1) determining the total income at Rs. 10,39,251/-due to adjustment of income replaced by Rs. 10,39,251/- as total income against the NIL income.

Thereafter assesee filed an rectification application under section 154 of the Act and it was rejected and confirmed the adjustment made under Section 143(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. Aggrieved assessee filed appeal before the CIT(A).

The CIT(A) dismissed the appeal of the assessee.

S. N. Divatia counsel for the assessee submitted that there was a delay of 217 days occurred for filing the return due to the mistake of assessee’s tax consultant.

Further, counsel for assessee submitted that  when the assessee society came to know the same after the Covid period, the assessee society appointed another tax consultant / Chartered Accountant after the change of office bearers of the society and made enquiries of the Income Tax Portal to ascertain the latest tax position. So CIT(A) has not condoned the delay and dismissed the appeal.

Bholaram Devashi, counsel for the revenue submitted that  assessee did not explain the delay properly before the CIT(A) and supported the decision of the CIT(A).

The tribunal observing the contentions of the both parties, found that the tax consultant of the assessee has not followed all the tax demands and the necessary submissions made to the Revenue Authorities during the pre-covid period .

Therefore, the single member bench of Suchitra Kamble, (Judicial Member) remanded back the issues  contested by the assessee society  to the file of the CIT(A) for proper adjudication.To Read the full text of the Order CLICK HERE

Support our journalism by subscribing to Taxscan premium. Follow us on Telegram for quick updates

Avalon Courtyard-2 Coop Housing Service Society Ltd. vs ITO


Counsel for Appellant:   Shri S. N. Divatia & Shri Samir Vora

Counsel for Respondent:   Shri Bholaram Devashi

Be the First to get the Best

Join Our email list to get the latest Tax Updates , Special Offers, Events delivered right to your Inbox

Email Address *

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s