GURUKRUPA CREDIT CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETY LTD, BHATKAL TALUK vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD -2, KARWAR, KARWAR

When the case called for, none appeared on behalf of the assessee nor any adjournment application has been moved. We therefore proceed to adjudicate the appeal with the assistance of ld. Sr.DR.

We have heard the ld. Sr. DR and perused the record placed before us. We observe that the assessee is a cooperative society registered under the Karnataka Cooperative Societies Act, 1959 and engaged in providing credit facilities to Members. It filed return of income for A,Y. 2018-19 declaring Nil income after claiming deduction u/s.80P of the Act at Rs.32,90,195/-. Case selected for complete scrutiny under E-assessment Scheme, 2019 for verification of two issues namely (i) Investments/ Advances/Loans and (ii) deduction from total income under Chapter VIA. Valid statutory notices u/s.143(2) and 142(1) were issued to which the assessee furnished the requisite details. Ld. Assessing Officer concluded the assessment disallowing the deduction u/s.80P(2)(d) of the Act at Rs.32,90,195/-. Assessee carried the matter before ld.CIT(A) but with a delay of 134 days. Ld.CIT(A) dismissed the appeal of the assessee by not condoning the delay and has not adjudicated on merits of the case.

We have gone through the order of ld.CIT(A) wherein ld.CIT(A) has observed in para No.2.1 that “The appellant in Form 35 has not admitted that there is any delay in filing of appeal and hence not filed the reasons for the same in Column 14 and 15 of Form 35.”. However, upon perusal of Form No.35 Column No.15, we find that assessee has provided the reasons stating that they were unaware of the online proceedings and not conversant with dealing with income tax matters. Further, the assessee approached the Tax Consultant/professions who did not file the appeal within the time limit and since the assessee is completely dependent upon the Tax Consultant, the delay has occurred. Therefore, a prayer made to condone the delay and admit the appeal for adjudication. Thus, it is vivid that assessee has furnished the explanation for delay in presenting the appeal by 134 days.

Upon a comprehensive appraisal of the facts, we find that the delay cannot be attributed either to deliberate inaction or to any lack of bonafides on the part of the assessee. The circumstances explained demonstrate that the default occurred due to reasons beyond the assessee's control and not on account of any negligence, or want of diligence. In our considered view, assessee has satisfactorily established the existence of "sufficient cause" for the delay in preferring the appeal before the First Appellate Authority. Adopting justice oriented approach and placing reliance on the judgments of Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Collector, Land Acquisition, Anantnag & Anr. Vs. Mst. Katiji & Ors. reported in (1987) 2 SCC 107 and in the case of Inder Singh Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh judgment dated 21.03.2025 (2025 INSC 382), we condone the delay of 134 days before ld.CIT(A).

In view thereof and without dwelling upon the merits of the case, we are inclined to remit back the issues raised in the instant appeal to the file of ld.CIT(A) to condone the delay and adjudicate the issue on merits as contemplated u/s.250(6) of the Act. Needless to mention that ld.CIT(A) in the set aside proceedings shall afford reasonable opportunity to the assessee. Assessee is directed to provide updated email id and contact detail to the department for receiving the notices from ITBA portal. Assessee is also directed to remain vigilant and not to take adjournment unless otherwise required for reasonable cause. Impugned order is set aside and the effective grounds of appeal raised by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes.

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes.