RATNAGIRI ZILLA KRUSHI KHATE KARMACHARI SAHAKARI PATSANSTHA MARYADIT,RATNAGIRI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, RATNAGIRI

The brief facts of the case are that, the assessee is a Co-operative Credit Society and engaged in providing credit facilities to its members. The assessee has filed the return of income on 23.10.2021 for the Assessment Year 2019-20 disclosing a total income of Rs NIL after claiming deduction u/sec 80P(2)(a)(i) of the Act. And the return of 2 Ratnagiri Zilla Krushi Khate Karamchari Sahakari Maryadit income was processed assessing the total income of Rs.7,82,750/- and raised the demand of Rs.2,87,035/- vide order u/sec 143(1) of the Act dated 1.05.2020. 3. Aggrieved by the order passed u/sec 143(1) of the Act, the assessee has filed an appeal before the CIT(A). However, the CIT(A) found that there is a delay in filing the appeal and the assessee has not explained the sufficient reasons for the delay. He further did not condone the delay and dismissed the assessee’s appeal in limine. Aggrieved by the order of the CIT(A), the assessee has filed the appeal before the Hon'ble Tribunal.

At the time of hearing, the Ld.AR submitted that the CIT(A) has not considered the facts and valid reasons of the assessee as mentioned in the Form.No.35 and affidavit and the delay in filling the appeal was neither deliberate nor wanton act, but the circumstances beyond the control of the assessee. The Ld.AR emphasized that the assessee has a good case on merits and prayed for an opportunity to substantiate with material evidences before the lower authorities. Per contra, the Ld. DR supported the order of the CIT(A).

We heard the rival submissions and perused the material on record. Prima-facie, the CIT(A) has passed the order considering the fact that there is no proper compliance by the assessee in spite of providing adequate opportunity of hearing and the delay in filling the appeal was not explained with reasonable cause. Whereas the assessee has raised grounds of appeal challenging denial of claim by the Assessing Officer and there could be various reasons for no proper compliance. Whereas the assessee in Form.No.35 made a request for condonation of delay in filling the appeal and dealt by the CIT(A). We considering the facts, provisions and the condonation of delay request, we are of the opinion there is a reasonable cause in filing of the appeal with delay and there is no benefit derived in causing delay in filing the appeal before the CIT(A). We find the Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of 3 Ratnagiri Zilla Krushi Khate Karamchari Sahakari Maryadit B. Madhuri Goud v. B. Damodar Reddy (2012) 12 SCC 693, has held that the following principles must be kept in mind while considering the application for condonation of delay; (i) There should be a liberal, pragmatic, justice oriented, non-pedantic approach while dealing with an application for condonation of delay, for the courts are not supposed to legalise injustice but are obliged to remove injustice. (ii) The terms “sufficient cause” should be understood in their proper spirit, philosophy and purpose regard being had to the fact that these terms are basically elastic and are to be applied in proper perspective to the obtaining fact-situation. (iii) Substantial justice being paramount and pivotal the technical considerations should not be given undue and uncalled for emphasis. (iv) No presumption can be attached to deliberate cause of delay but, gross negligence on the part of the counsel or litigant is to be taken note of. (v) Lack of bona fides imputable to a party seeking condonation of delay is a significant and relevant fact. (vi) It is to be kept in mind that adherence to strict proof should not affect public justice and cause public mischief because the courts are required to be vigilant so that in the ultimate eventuate there is no real failure of justice. (vii) The concept of liberal approach has to encapsulate the conception of reasonableness and it cannot be allowed a totally unfettered free play. (viii)There is a distinction between inordinate delay and a delay of short duration or few days, for to the former doctrine of prejudice is attracted whereas to the latter it may not be attracted. That apart, the first one warrants strict approach whereas the second calls for a liberal delineation. (ix) The conduct, behaviour and attitude of a party relating to its inaction or negligence are relevant factors to be taken into consideration. It is so as the fundamental principle is that the courts are required to weigh the scale of balance of justice in respect of both parties and the said principle cannot be given a total go by in the name of liberal approach. (x) If the explanation offered is concocted or the grounds urged in the application are fanciful, the courts should be vigilant not to expose the other side unnecessarily to face such litigation. (xi) It is to be borne in mind that no one gets away with fraud, is representation or interpolation by taking recourse to the technicalities of law of limitation. (xii) The entire gamut of facts are to be carefully scrutinized and the approach should be based on the paradigm of judicial discretion which is founded on objective reasoning and not on individual perception. (xiii) The State or a public body or an entity representing a collective cause should be given some acceptable latitude.”

The Hon'ble supreme court in the case of Collector, Land Acquisition Vs. MST Katiji & others (167 ITR 471) (SC) has observed as under :

We respectfully follow the observations and ratio of the decisions of Hon’ble Supreme Court cited(supra) and find that the delay in filing the appeal before the CIT (Appeals) by the assessee is supported with sufficient cause and therefore pragmatic approach should have been considered for condonation of delay. Accordingly, we direct the Ld.CIT(A) to condone the delay. Further considering the principles of natural justice, the assessee shall be provided with one more opportunity of hearing to substantiate the case along with the evidences and explanations. Accordingly, we set aside the order of the CIT(A) and remit the disputed issue to the file of the CIT(A) to adjudicate afresh and the assessee should be provided adequate opportunity of hearing and shall cooperate in submitting the information for early disposal of appeal. And 5 Ratnagiri Zilla Krushi Khate Karamchari Sahakari Maryadit the grounds of appeal of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes.

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced on this day of 14th May, 2026. MANISH BORAD PAVAN KUMAR GADALE (ACCOUNTANT MEMBER) (JUDICIAL MEMBER) पुणे / Pune; दिन ांक / Dated :14th May, 2026. Abhishek mohan Satish Kumar Madishetty आदेश की प्रतिलिपि अग्रेपिि / Copy of the Order forwarded to : अपील र्थी / The Appellant. 1. प्रत्यर्थी / The Respondent.

The Pr. CIT concerned. विभ गीय प्रतितनधि, आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण, “SMC” बेंच, 4. पुणे / DR, ITAT, “SMC” Bench, Pune. ग र्ड फ़ इल / Guard File. 5. //// आिेश नुस र / BY ORDER,