What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal condoned the delay, finding the explanation for non-compliance to be plausible and sufficient. The case was then remitted back to the CIT(A)/NFAC for adjudication on merits.

The assessee, a cooperative society, filed an appeal with the CIT(A)/NFAC after a significant delay of 267 days. The delay was attributed to the prolonged illness of the erstwhile secretary, supported by medical documents.

What were the issues?

Whether the delay in filing the appeal before the CIT(A)/NFAC was sufficiently explained, and if the CIT(A)/NFAC erred in dismissing the appeal without considering the merits.

Pratamika Krishi Pattina Sahakari… vs ITO | ITAT Bangalore 2026

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “B’’BENCH: BANGALORE

Before: SHRI BALAKRISHNAN S. & SHRI KESHAV DUBEY

For Appellant: CA Shree Raksha D., A.R

Hearing: 23.06.2026Pronounced: 07.09.2026

PER KESHAV DUBEY, JUDICIAL MEMBER:

This appeal at the instance of the assessee is directed against the order of the ld. CIT(A)/NFAC dated 06.10.2025 vide DIN & Order No. ITBA/NFAC/S/250/2025-26/1081479260(1) passed u/s 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short “the Act”) for the assessment year 2018-19.

The assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal:-

That the order of the Commissioner of Income 'Fax (Appeals) in so far is prejudicial to the interests of the appellant is bad and erroneous in law and against the facts and circumstances of the case. 2. That the order passed u/s 147 r.w.s. 144 is bad in law and without jurisdiction.

ITA No.2929/Bang/2025 Pratamika Krishi Pattina Sahakari Sangha Niyamita Rakkasagi, Vijayapur Page 2 of 4 3. That the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) erred in law and on facts in not condoning the delay even though there is genuine reason for not filing the appeal within the due date. 4. That the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) erred in law in not adjudicating the case on merits, despite the fact that the appellant had filed written submissions. 5. That the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) erred in holding that no "sufficient cause" existed for non-compliance before AO, without appreciating the practical limitations of a rural co- operative society. 6. That the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)erred in not granting a mandatory opportunity of hearing and denying the request for video-conferencing, thereby violating section 250(6A) and principles of natural justice. 7. That the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) erred in law in treating gross receipts/ bank credits as income, ignoring that a co- operative credit society handles members' deposits, loan repayments, which do not constitute income.

Each of the above grounds is without prejudice to one another, the appellant craves the leave of 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.

At the outset, the ld. AR of the assessee drew our attention to the order of the ld. CIT(A)/NFAC & vehemently submitted that the ld. CIT(A)/NFAC dismissed the appeal of the assessee in limine by not condoning the delay of 267 days in filing the appeal. The ld. AR of the assessee further drew our attention on the Affidavits both dated 23/06/2026 of the erstwhile secretary Mr. Sidramappa Basappa Turadagi & the present secretary Sri Siddalingayya Doddayya Hiremath as well as medical certificate and Discharge summary of the Mr. Sidramappa Basappa Turadagi & vehemently submitted that as the erstwhile secretary of the society Mr. Sidramappa Basappa Turadagi was suffering from prolonged illness and was under the continuous treatment of Dr. B.H.Kerudi, who had advised complete rest for approximately 9 months & for this

ITA No.2929/Bang/2025 Pratamika Krishi Pattina Sahakari Sangha Niyamita Rakkasagi, Vijayapur Page 3 of 4 medical condition & inability to attend the official duties, the Secretary could not take the timely steps to file the appeal within the prescribed period.

3.1 Having heard the ld. Counsel for the assessee as well as ld. DR & on perusal of the Affidavits of the secretary as well as medical certificate & Discharge summary, it is perceived that the explanation offered is plausible and sufficient cause being shown by the assessee, which prevented them in filing the appeal before the ld. CIT(A)/NFAC within the prescribed period and accordingly we are inclined to condone the delay & admit the appeal for adjudication on merits.

Now having condone the delay, in our considered opinion as the ld. CIT(A)/NFAC dismissed the appeal in limine, we remit the entire issues in dispute to the file of the ld. CIT(A)/NFAC to decide on the merits of the case in accordance with law. Needless to say, reasonable opportunities of being heard must be granted to the assessee. It is ordered accordingly.

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced in the open court on 7th Sept, 2026

Sd/- Sd/- (Balakrishnan S.) (Keshav Dubey) Accountant Member Judicial Member

Bangalore, Dated 7th Sept, 2026. VG/SPS

ITA No.2929/Bang/2025 Pratamika Krishi Pattina Sahakari Sangha Niyamita Rakkasagi, Vijayapur Page 4 of 4

Copy to:

The Applicant 2. The Respondent 3. The CIT 4. The DR, ITAT, Bangalore. 5 Guard file By order

Asst. Registrar, ITAT, Bangalore.

PRATAMIKA KRISHI PATTINA SAHAKARI SANGHA NIYAMITA RAKKASAGI,PO RAKKASAGI,TQ MUDDEBIHAL DT, VIJAYAPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD ONE, BIJAPURA

What did the Tribunal hold?

What were the facts?

What were the issues?

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Recent GST High Court judgments