JAYSHANKAR KALKUNDRIKAR MULTIPURPOSE SOUHARD SAHAKARI NIYAMIT,BELAGAVI vs. ITO WARD 1, BELAGAVI, BELAGAVI

आदेश / ORDER PER VINAY BHAMORE, JM: This appeal filed by the assessee is directed against the order dated 21.01.2026 passed by Ld. CIT(A)/NFAC for the assessment year 2016-17.

2 ITA No.150/PAN/2026

“1. The learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), NFAC erred in law and on facts in dismissing the appeal of the appellant as not maintainable on the ground of delay in filing the appeal. 2. The learned CIT(A) failed to appreciate the explanation furnished by the appellant for the delay and erred in not condoning the delay in the interest of substantial justice. 3. The learned CIT(A) erred in dismissing the appeal without adjudicating the issues raised against the reassessment order passed under section 147 r.w.s. 144 and 144B of the Act. 4. Without prejudice to the above, the reassessment order passed by the Assessing Officer is arbitrary and unsustainable in law inasmuch as the Assessing Officer treated bank deposits as business receipts and estimated income without appreciating the nature of the activities of the appellant society. 5. The learned Assessing Officer erred in making additions towards interest income and alleged unexplained investment without properly appreciating the facts and circumstances of the case. 6. The reassessment proceedings initiated under section 147 of the Act are bad in law and without jurisdiction, as the mandatory conditions prescribed under sections 147, 148 and 148A have not been validly satisfied, and the order passed under section 148A(d) is liable to be quashed for non- application of mind and absence of legally sustainable material suggesting escapement of income. 7. Without prejudice to the above, the reopening of assessment beyond a period of three years from the end of the relevant assessment year is bad in law, as the conditions prescribed under section 149(1)(b) are not satisfied. 8. The appellant craves leave to add, amend, alter or withdraw any of the above grounds of appeal.”

3 ITA No.150/PAN/2026

4 ITA No.150/PAN/2026

144 r.w.s. 144B of the IT Act by determining the income of the assessee at Rs.18,98,836/- as against no return filed by the assessee. 4. Being aggrieved with the above assessment order, the assessee preferred an appeal before Ld. CIT(A)/NFAC. Since the appeal was furnished belatedly i.e. with the delay of 290 days, Ld. CIT(A)/NFAC dismissed the appeal filed by the assessee without condoning the delay and without dealing with the merits of the case. 5. It is the above order against which the assessee is in appeal before this Tribunal. 6. We have heard Ld. Counsels from both the sides and perused the material available on record including the paper book furnished by the assessee. In this regard, we find that it is the sole request of the counsel of the assessee that the matter may kindly be restored back to the file of Ld. CIT(A)/NFAC for deciding the issue afresh, since the appeal was dismissed on the

5 ITA No.150/PAN/2026

ground of delay without admitting the same and without going into merits of the case. In this regard, it was the contention of counsel of the assessee that the delay was neither intentional nor deliberate but occurred on account of bona-fide reasons since the employee who was looking after the tax matters resigned from the cooperative society and the other person do not have the login ID and password of the email registered on income tax portal, therefore, the assessee could not get the intimation of passing/uploading of assessment order on the income tax portal. However, as soon as the assessee came to know about the impugned assessment order, the appeal was prepared and furnished before Ld. CIT(A)/NFAC with delay of 290 days. In this regard, the assessee furnished an affidavit before the bench stating the above facts and requested to condone the delay in filing of first appeal before Ld. CIT(A)/NFAC. It was also the contention of Ld. Counsel of the assessee that in the light of judgment passed by Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of

6 ITA No.150/PAN/2026

Collector Land Acquisition vs. Mst. Katiji, 167 ITR 471 (SC) delay in filing of first appeal before Ld. CIT(A) should be condoned and the matter may kindly be restored back to the file of Ld. CIT(A) for passing the speaking order afresh and as per fact and law. 7. Considering the totality of the facts of the case and in the interest of justice and without going into merits of the case and also with the consent of both the parties, we deem it appropriate to set-aside the impugned order passed by Ld. CIT(A)/NFAC and restore the matter back to the file of Ld. CIT(A)/NFAC with a direction to condone the delay and decide the appeal afresh and as per fact and law after providing reasonable opportunity of hearing to the assessee. The assessee is also hereby directed to respond to the notices issued by Ld. CIT(A)/NFAC in this regard and to produce relevant documents, submissions and evidences in support of grounds of appeal without taking any adjournment under any pretext, otherwise Ld. CIT(A)/NFAC shall be at liberty

7 ITA No.150/PAN/2026

to pass appropriate orders as per law. Thus, the grounds of appeal raised by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes. 8. In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced on this 13th day of August, 2026.

Sd/- Sd/- (MANISH BORAD) (VINAY BHAMORE) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER Panaji / Dated : 13th August, 2026. Sujeet Kumar Digitally signed by Sujeet Sujeet/DOC Kumar Sharma Sharma Date: 2026.08.13 15:50:28 +05'30' आदेश क� ��त�ल�प अ�े�षत / Copy of the Order forwarded to : अपीलाथ� / The Appellant. 1. ��यथ� / The Respondent. 2. 3. The Pr. CIT concerned. 4. DR, ITAT, Panaji. गाड� फ़ाइल / Guard File. 5. आदेशानुसार / BY ORDER, // True Copy // Assistant Registrar/Sr.PS ITAT, Panaji.