SHRI SANGMESHWAR PRATHAMIKA KRISHI PATTINA SAHAKARI SANGA NIYAMITA,BIJAPUR vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER, WARD - 1, BIJAPUR

Both the appeals are delayed by 110 days. Along with the appeals, the assessee has filed an application seeking condonation of the delay. As per the assessee, it is a primary Agriculture Credit Cooperative Society registered under the Karnataka Cooperative Societies Act, 1959, primarily engaged in the activity of carrying on the business of providing credit facilities to its members and receiving deposits from the members. As per the assessee, it is situated in a rural area and did not have proper guidance in relation to the appellate proceedings before the Tribunal. Therefore, after receipt of the order passed by the learned CIT(A), it was unaware of the technical and procedural requirements for filing the appeal before the Tribunal. Since taking advice and assistance from the tax professional took some time due to constraints of distance, availability and collection of necessary documents, the present appeals were filed after a delay of 110 days. It is submitted that the delay has occurred due to the circumstances beyond the control of the assessee and therefore may kindly be condoned.

We find that the reasons stated by the assessee for seeking condonation of delay fall within the parameters for grant of condonation laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Collector Land Acquisition, Anantnag vs. MST Katiji and anothers, reported in 1987 SCR (2) 387. It is well-established that the Rules of procedure are handmaid of justice. When substantial justice and technical considerations are pitted against each other, the cause of substantial justice deserves to be preferred. In the present case, the assessee does not stand to benefit from the late filing of the present appeal. In view of the above and having perused the affidavit filed by the assessee, we are of the considered view that there exists sufficient cause for not filing a present appeal within the limitation period, and therefore, we condone the delay in filing the appeal by the assessee, and we proceed to decide the appeal.

We have considered the submission of both sides and perused the materials available on record. From the impugned orders, it is evident that the assessee’s appeal against the assessment orders was filed after a delay of 47 days. In its application seeking condonation of delay, the assessee submitted that its Chief Executive Officer was suffering from illness and was therefore unable to take the necessary steps to file the appeal before the learned CIT(A). It is submitted that due to the aforesaid circumstances, the appeal could not be filed within the prescribed limitation period.

We find that in the appellate proceedings before the learned CIT(A), despite the grant of multiple opportunities, the assessee failed to comply with the hearing notices and could not furnish any documentary evidence, such as a copy of a medical report or certificate to substantiate the claim as a sufficient cause for delay in filing the appeal. Accordingly, the learned CIT(A) dismissed the appeal filed by the assessee for the assessment years 2018-19 and 2019-20 on the ground of delay.

Now in the present appeal before us, the assessee is duly represented by the learned Authorised Representative (“learned AR”) and wishes to pursue the litigation against the additions made by the AO. During the hearing, the learned AR submitted that, given an opportunity, the assessee will submit all the necessary documents to support its claim.

Accordingly, in view of the facts and circumstances, as noted above, we deem it appropriate to grant another opportunity to the assessee. Therefore, we restore the matter to the file of the learned CIT(A) for de novo adjudication, with a direction to the assessee to furnish necessary documents to support the reasons resulting in the delayed filing of the appeal before the learned CIT(A). Accordingly, the impugned orders are set aside, and the grounds raised by the assessee in the present appeals are allowed for statistical purposes. Needless to mention, no order shall be passed without affording reasonable and adequate opportunity of hearing to the parties.

In the result, both appeals by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced in the open court on 21-Aug-2026.