PRIMARY AGRICULTURE COOPERATIVE SOCIETY VELDANDA,VELDANDA vs. ITO, WARD-1, MAHABUBNAGAR

The brief facts of both the appeals are that the assessee had preferred appeals before the Ld. CIT(A) against the penalty orders passed by the Learned Assessing Officer (“Ld. AO”) under section 271(1)(b) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (“the Act”) dated 05.09.2024 and under section 271(1)(c) of the Act dated 10.09.2024. There was a delay of 29 days and 50 days, respectively, in filing the said appeals before the Ld. CIT(A). However, while filing Form No. 35, the assessee failed to disclose that there was a delay in filing the appeals and, consequently, neither sought condonation of the delay nor furnished any reasons explaining the same. The Ld. CIT(A), without condoning the delay, dismissed both the appeals of the assessee in limine. 3. Aggrieved with the order of the Ld. CIT (A), the assessee is in appeal before this Tribunal. Before us, the Learned Authorized Representative (“Ld. AR”) submitted that due to an inadvertent mistake, the assessee failed to mention in Form No. 35 that there was a delay in filing the appeals and, therefore, the reasons for such delay also could not be stated therein. He submitted that the Ld. CIT(A), instead of providing an opportunity to the assessee to explain the delay and file an appropriate condonation petition, dismissed the appeals outright. It was contended that the impugned orders have been passed in violation of the principles of natural justice. He, therefore, prayed that the matter may be restored to the file of the Ld. CIT(A) with a direction to afford one more opportunity to the assessee to file petitions for condonation of delay and thereafter decide the same in accordance with law.

Per contra, the Learned Departmental Representative (“Ld. DR”) relied upon the impugned orders of the Ld. CIT(A) and submitted that no interference is called for. 5. We have considered the rival submissions and carefully perused the material available on record. It is an undisputed fact that the appeals before the Ld. CIT(A) were filed belatedly by 29 days and 50 days, respectively. It is also not in dispute that the assessee failed to disclose the delay in Form No. 35 and consequently did not file any petition seeking condonation of delay. However, we find that the Ld. CIT(A) dismissed the appeals on the ground of limitation without providing any opportunity to the assessee to explain the reasons for the delay or to file an appropriate condonation petition. Therefore, considering the totality of the facts and circumstances of the case and in the interest of substantial justice, we deem it fit and proper to set aside the impugned orders of the Ld. CIT(A) and restore both the appeals to his file. The assessee is directed to file appropriate petitions seeking condonation of delay along with the reasons and supporting material, if any. The Ld. CIT(A) shall consider and decide the condonation petitions in accordance with law after affording adequate opportunity of being heard to the assessee. In the event the delay is condoned, the Ld. CIT(A) shall adjudicate the appeals on merits by passing a reasoned and speaking order in accordance with law.

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are treated as allowed for statistical purposes.