ADI DRAVIDAR AND TRIBAL WELFARE SCHOOL AND DEPT. STAFF COOP SOCIETY X-235,CHENNAI vs. ITO, NCW-10(1), CHENNAI

The Assessee raised the following grounds of appeal : “1. The assessment order passed under section 144 r.w.s. 144B and the appellate order under section 250 are contrary to law, facts, and principles of natural justice and are liable to be set aside.

Briefly, stated the facts of the case are that the appellant is a Co-operative Society duly incorporated under the provisions of Tamilnadu Co-operative Societies Act, 1983. The Return of Income for the assessment year 2022-23 was filed on 30.10.2022 declaring NIL income after claiming deduction u/s.80P of The Act of Rs.52,21,867/-. While doing so, the assessment was completed by the e-Assessment Unit of the Department (hereinafter called ‘AO’) vide order dated 18.01.2024 passed u/s.144 r.w.s 144B of the Income Tax Act, 1961 at a total income of Rs.52,21,867/-. While doing so, the Assessing Officer denied the claim for deduction u/s.80P, as the appellant had failed to respond to the notices issued by the Assessing Officer calling for the certain information. Accordingly, Assessing Officer denied the claim for deduction u/s.80P by holding that the appellant had failed to establish as to how it was eligible to claim deduction u/s.80P of the Act. While doing so, the Assessing Officer for framing best judgment assessment.

Being aggrieved by the above assessment order, the appellant preferred an appeal before ld.CIT(A), with a delay of 284 days. The appellant also filed a petition seeking condonation on the ground that delay is occurred as the Secretary was looking after tax matters had retired from the society and the new incumbent took sometime to engage Chartered Accountant to prepare the appeal papers. The said explanation was rejected by the ld.CIT(A) and refused to condone the delay and dismissed the appeal in limine on the grounds of delay.

Being aggrieved by the order of ld.CIT(A), the appellant is in appeal before us in the present appeal. At the outset, we find that there is a delay of 96 days in filing present appeal before this Tribunal. The appellant had filed a petition seeking the condonation of delay on the ground that the delay occurred on account of the fact that since the Appellant Co-operative Society of State Government of Tamilnadu Government, it took sometime to initiate the steps to prepare appeal before this Tribunal as the instructions from Joint Registrar, Co- operative Society was received very late and also identifying the Chartered Accountant to file the appeal before this Tribunal.

We have perused the Affidavit and the averments made in the Affidavit. The averments made in the affidavit remain uncontroverted by Learned CIT- DR. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of M.Kalappa Sethi Vs.

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 284 days in presenting the appeal before the ld.CIT(A). The appellant filed a petition seeking the condonation of delay on the ground that the delay in filing of appeal occurred on the ground that since the Appellant Co-operative Society of State Government of Tamilnadu Government, it took sometime to initiate the steps to prepare appeal before this Tribunal as the instructions from Joint Registrar, Co-operative Society was received very late and also identifying the Chartered Accountant to file the appeal, as a result, Appellant-Co-operative Society 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. Order pronounced in the open Court on 23rd June, 2026.