PONDHA SADHAN SAHAKARI SAMITI LIMITED,PONDHA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD1(1)(2), INCOME TAX OFFICE, DEHRADUN

PDF · subscribers
ITA 334/DDN/2026Status: DisposedITAT Dehradun23 July 2026AY 2018-197 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeals, citing the principle of substantial justice over technicalities. It held that the ex-parte orders were passed without providing an effective opportunity of hearing due to lack of proof of notice service.

What were the facts?

The assessee, a co-operative society, deposited a large sum of cash but failed to file returns for two assessment years. Notices were issued, but the assessee did not respond, leading to ex-parte assessment orders and confirmation by the CIT(A). The appeals were filed with a significant delay.

What were the issues?

Whether the ex-parte assessment and appellate orders are valid when there is no proof of service of notices to the assessee, and whether the delay in filing appeals should be condoned.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 139,Section 148,Section 143(2),Section 142(1),Section 144,Section 69A,Section 250

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, DEHRADUN BENCH, DEHRADUN

Before: Shri Raj Kumar Chauhan & Shri Sanjay Awasthi

Hearing: 23.07.2026Pronounced: 23.07.2026

Heard together (2 matters)

ITA No. 334/DDN/2026
ITA No. 335/DDN/2026

Read from the judgment's own cause title. This page is filed under one of them.

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DEHRADUN BENCH, DEHRADUN Before Shri Raj Kumar Chauhan, Judicial Member & Shri Sanjay Awasthi, Accountant Member ITA No. 334/DDN/2026 :Asstt. Year : 2018-19 ITA No. 335/DDN/2026 :Asstt. Year : 2019-20 Pondha Sadhan Sahakari Samiti Ltd. Vs Income Tax Officer, Pondha, Sahaspur, Ward-1(1)(2), Dehradun-248001 Dehradun-248001 (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) PAN No. AANFP9138R Assesseeby : Sh. Sanjeev Nagar, CA Revenue by : Sh. Mohan Lal Joshi, Sr. DR Date of Hearing: 23.07.2026 Date of Pronouncement: 23.07.2026

ORDER Per Raj Kumar Chauhan, Judicial Member: These twin appeals by the assessees are directed against the same date orders dated 16.08.2025 of ld. CIT(A)/NFAC, Delhi passed u/s 250 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) wherein addition made vide assessment order dated 09.03.2024 were confirmed and appeal was dismissed ex-parte.

2.

By this common order, we propose to decide the ITA Nos. 334 & 335/DDN/2026, as the parties are same and factual matrix is also same and in order to avoid the multiplicity of decision, the same are being disposed off accordingly. ITA No. 334/DDN/2026 for A.Y. 2019-20 is taken as “lead” case.

2 ITA Nos. 334 & 335/DDN/2026 Pondha Sadhan Sahakari Samiti Ltd. 3. Fact in brief are that the assessee is a co-operative society and found deposited cash of Rs.1,55,15,811/- in the bank account with District Co-operative Bank Limited, Dehradun for F.Y. 2017-18 relevant to A.Y. 2018-19 but has failed to file return of income for A.Y. 2018-19 u/s 139 of the Act. Accordingly, notice u/s 148 was issued on 04.04.2022 asking the assessee to file return of income by 04.05.2022. The assessee did not file return of income. Accordingly, notice 143(2) of the Act was issued which remained non-complied. Subsequent notice u/s 142(1) of the Act was issued on various dates including show-cause notice dated 01.08.2023 but no response was received. Hence, the assessment order was passed u/s 144 of the Act, making an addition of deemed income u/s 69A of the Act to the tune of Rs.1,55,15,811/-.

4.

Aggrieved by the assessment order, the assessee filed appeal which has been dismissed ex-parte on the ground that the assessee has failed to appear and file response despite four opportunities given as find mentioned in para No. 4 of the impugned order.

5.

Aggrieved by the impugned ex-parte order, the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal. We have noticed that the Registry had made an objection to the fact that the appeal is time barred by 756 days. Similarly, the appeal in ITA No.

3 ITA Nos. 334 & 335/DDN/2026 Pondha Sadhan Sahakari Samiti Ltd. 335/DDN/2026 for A.Y. 2019-20 is also stated to be barred by 756 days. The assessee/applicant has filed an application seeking condonation of delay, contents of this same are extracted below as under:

6.

We have heard the ld. AR and the ld. DR. The ld. AR would submit that the delay has occurred due to inadvertent circumstances as find narrated in the application and in the larger interest of justice, the delay may be condoned and since both the orders are ex-parte that the Assessment order as well as First Appellate order, hence the matter be restored to the file of the AO.

4 ITA Nos. 334 & 335/DDN/2026 Pondha Sadhan Sahakari Samiti Ltd. 7. The ld. DR, on the other hand, would submit that the assessee has failed to explain sufficient cause for condonation of delay and prayed for dismissal of the appeal.

8.

We have considered the rival submissions and examined the record. We have noticed that the assessee has moved an application giving the reasons for delay in filing the appeal. Nothing has been brought on record by the Revenue to contradict the contents of the delay condonation application of the assessee. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Collector, Land Acquisition Vs. MST. Katiji&Ors., (1987) 167 ITR 471 (SC), was pleased to hold regarding the condonation of delay as under: “The Legislature has conferred the power to condone delay by enacting section 51 of the Limitation Act of 1963 in order to enable the courts to do substantial justice to parties by disposing of matters on de merits”. The expression “sufficient cause” employed by the Legislature is adequately elastic to enable the courts to apply the law in a meaningful manner which subserves the ends of justice that being the life-purpose of the existence of the institution of courts. It is common knowledge that this court has been making of justifiably liberal approach in matters instituted in this court. But the message does not appear to have percolated down to all the other courts in the hierarchy. And such a liberal approach is adopted on principle as it is realized that: 1. Ordinarily, a litigant does not stand to benefit by lodging an appeal late. 2. Refusing to condone delay can result in a meritorious matter being thrown out at the very threshold and cause of justice being defeated. As against this, when delay is condoned, the highest

5 ITA Nos. 334 & 335/DDN/2026 Pondha Sadhan Sahakari Samiti Ltd. that can happen is that a cause would be decided on merits after hearing the parties.” 9. In view of above, it is settled law that the technicalities are hand-made of justice and the substantial rights of an assessee should not be defeated because of the technicalities. In our opinion, once the appeal was treated as barred by limitation and the delay was not condoned, the ld. CIT(A) could not have proceeded to adjudicate the appeal on merits.

10.

Considering the above facts and circumstances, we are inclined to condone the delay in filing the appeal and proceed to decide the appeals on merit. It has been argued on behalf of the assessee/appellant that the notice allegedly sent by the ld. CIT(A) as well as by the Assessing Officer were never received by the assessee. Hence, the assessee could not join the proceedings before the AO as well as before the ld. CIT(A).

11.

The ld. DR, on the other hand, would submit that the notice sent by the ld. CIT(A) as well as by the Assessing Officer were deemed to be duly served and the same were sent on the address available with the Income Tax department.

12.

We have considered the rival submissions and examined the record. On perusal of the impugned order as well as the assessment order, we have noticed that it is simply stated that the notices were issued on various dates to the

6 ITA Nos. 334 & 335/DDN/2026 Pondha Sadhan Sahakari Samiti Ltd. assessee/appellant by the Assessing Officer as well as by the ld. CIT(A) during the assessment proceedings as well as appellant proceedings, respectively. However, there is no material/evidence on record to show that such notices were ever received or served upon the assessee/appellant where issuing of notice is not sufficient for giving an effective opportunity of hearing which is the mandate of law for affording the principle of natural justice. In the absence of any proof regarding service of the notice or receiving of the notice by the assessee/appellant in the assessment as well as first appellate proceedings, we are of the considered view that the impugned Assessment Order as well as First Appellate authority order has been passed without giving effective opportunity of hearing to the assessee/appellant. In the given facts and circumstances of the case, we are of the considered opinion that the impugned order has been passed ex-parte without giving effective opportunity of hearing and the same accordingly deserves to be set aside. The ends of justice shall be met by remitting the case to the file of the AO with the direction to decide the same afresh by conducting de novo assessment proceedings after giving effective opportunities to the assessee/appellant. The grounds raised in the appeal are accordingly allowed in the above manner.

7 ITA Nos. 334 & 335/DDN/2026 Pondha Sadhan Sahakari Samiti Ltd. 13. As regards ITA No. 335/DDN/2026 is concerned, since the factual matrix as well as the decision of the ld. CIT(A) in the present appeal are identical to those involved in ITA No. 334/DDN/2026, as aforesaid, the findings and reasoning recorded by the Tribunal therein shall apply mutatis mutandis to the present appeal also.

14.

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes. Order Pronounced in the Open Court on 23/07/2026. Sd/- Sd/- (Sanjay Awasthi) (Raj Kumar Chauhan) Accountant Member Judicial Member Dated: 21/08/2026 *Subodh Kumar, Sr. PS* Copy forwarded to: 1. Appellant 2. Respondent 3. CIT 4. CIT(Appeals) 5. DR: ITAT ASSISTANT REGISTRAR

More judgments on Section 139

All 3,629 judgments and leading authorities on Section 139 →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →