R1228 AMMAPALAYAM PRIMARY AGRI COOP CREDIT SOCIETY LIMITED,PERAMBALUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, PERAMBALUR

Since identical facts and issues are involved in both these appeals, these appeals were heard together and disposed of by this common order. For the sake of clarity and convenience the facts relevant in the ITA No.1011/CHNY/2026 for the Assessment Year 2015-16 are stated herein:

Briefly the facts of the case are that the appellant is a Co-operative Society registered under Tamilnadu Co-operative Societies Act, 1983. It is classified as Primary Agricultural Co-operative Society. The appellant has not filed the Return of Income for the Assessment Year 2015-16 under the provisions of section 139(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. However, based on the information that the appellant society made cash deposits of Rs.1,98,13,785/- in the account maintained with the bank during the previous year relevant to assessment year under consideration, the Jurisdictional Assessing Officer(JAO) formed an opinion that the income got escaped assessment from tax. Accordingly, a notice u/s.148 of the Act was issued on 08.04.2022 after duly complying with the procedure laid down u/s.148A of the Act. The appellant neither complied with the notice u/s.148 of the Act nor notice u/s.142(1) of the Act. In the circumstances, e-Assessment Unit of the Department(hereinafter called ‘AO’) had proceeded with best judgment assessment vide order dated 26.03.2024 passed u/s.147 r.w.s 144 read with section 144B of the Income Tax Act, 1961 at a total income of Rs.1,98,16,888/-. While doing so, the Assessing Officer made addition of cash deposit of Rs.1,98,13,785/- made in the bank account maintained with Tiruchirapalli DCC Bank Ltd, Chettikulam as unexplained money of the appellant for the failure of the appellant to explain the source of the cash deposits. Similarly, the Assessing Officer also made addition of Rs.3,096/- on account of Insurance Commission received from during the year.

Being aggrieved by the above assessment order, the appellant preferred an appeal before ld.CIT(A) with a delay of 118 days. The appellant also filed a petition seeking the condonation of delay on the ground that the delay had occurred on account of negligence of the previous auditor. However, the ld.CIT(A) has refused to condone the delay and dismissed the appeal in limine on the grounds of delay by holding that the appellant could not demonstrate any sufficient cause for the delay.

Being aggrieved by the order of ld.CIT(A), the appellant is in appeal before us in the present appeal. The Learned Counsel submits that the ld.CIT(A) ought not have dismissed the appeal in limine by refusing to condone the delay. The appellant filed a petition seeking the condonation of delay explaining the reasons for the delay.

On the other hand, ld.Sr.DR vehemently opposed the above submissions.

We heard rival submissions and perused the material available on record. The issue that arises for our consideration is whether the ld.CIT(A) was justified in dismissing the appeal on the grounds of delay by refusing the condonation of delay. Admittedly, there is a delay of 118 days in presenting the appeal before the ld.CIT(A). The appellant filed a petition seeking the condonation of delay explaining the reasons for the delay that on account of lapses and administrative failures committed by the Administrators and staff managing the affairs of the appellant society, as a result, the appellant was not able to file the appeal within the stipulated time. However, ld.CIT(A) had refused to condone the delay by stating that no sufficient cause was shown for the delay. On careful perusal of the findings of ld.CIT(A), it would be clear that the ld.CIT(A) had not given findings as to how the explanation offered by the appellant for delay does not constitute a reasonable cause. The averments made in the affidavit remain uncontroverted by the learned Sr.DR.

In M.Kalappa Sethi Vs. M.V.Laxmi Narain Rao AIR 1973 SC 627, it was held that an uncontroverted affidavit shall be taken as an affidavit on fact. The averments made in the Affidavit seeking the condonation of delay in filing appeal before the ld.CIT(A), remain uncontroverted by the learned ld.CIT(A). In the absence of any material to the contrary, the averments made in the affidavit cannot be brushed aside. Therefore, we are of considered opinion that the ld.CIT(A) ought to have condoned the delay in filing the appeal and admitted the appeal for adjudication on merits. In the circumstances, we direct ld.CIT(A) to admit the appeal for adjudication on merits.

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purpose. ITA No.1012/CHNY/2026

Since the facts and issues involved in the above captioned appeal is identical, therefore, our decision in ITA No.1011/CHNY/2026 for the A.Y.2015-16 shall apply mutatis mutandis to the appeal of the assessee in ITA No.1012/CHNY/2026 for the A.Y.2019-20.

In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITA No.1012/CHNY/2026 is partly allowed for statistical purposes.

To sum up, both the captioned appeals of the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced in the open Court on 22nd May, 2026.