THE BELGAUM BAKERS CO-OP CREDIT SOCIETY LTD,BELGAUM vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD - 1, BELGAUM

PDF · subscribers
ITA 296/PAN/2025Status: DisposedITAT Panaji29 June 2026AY 2020-214 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal before the CIT(A) citing reasonable cause. The matter was remitted back to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication on merits.

What were the facts?

The assessee's appeal before the CIT(A) was dismissed in limine due to an 8-month delay. The assessee, a cooperative credit society, cited unfamiliarity with e-proceedings and personal circumstances of their consultant for the delay.

What were the issues?

Whether the delay in filing the appeal before the CIT(A) was condonable due to reasonable cause. Whether the additions made by the AO on account of unexplained unsecured loans and disallowance of interest were justified.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 144,Section 144B,Section 68,Section 80P(2)(d)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, PANAJI BENCH, ‘DB’ PANAJI

Before: DR.MANISH BORAD & SHRI PAVAN KUMAR GADALE

For Appellant: Shri Pramod Vaidhya
For Respondent: Shri Jeetendra Kumar
Hearing: 20.05.2026Pronounced: 29.06.2026

PER DR. MANISH BORAD, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER :

The captioned appeal at the instance of assessee pertaining to A.Y. 2020-21 is directed against the order dated 10.07.2025 framed by National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi arising out of Assessment Order dated 20.09.2022 passed u/s.144 r.w.s.144B of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short ‘the Act’).

2.

Assessee has raised various grounds of appeal challenging the addition u/s.68 of the Act for the unexplained unsecured loan at Rs.6,66,66,023/- and interest from Cooperative banks at Rs.27,76,413/-. However, at the outset, ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted that ld. CIT(A) has not condoned the delay of 8 months in filing of appeal before

2 The Belgaum Bakers Coop. Credit Society Ltd. ld.CIT(A) and dismissed the appeal in limine being barred by limitation and therefore prayed for granting of one more opportunity.

3.

On the other hand, ld. DR supported the order of ld.CIT(A).

4.

We have heard the rival contentions and perused the records placed before us. We note that the assessee is a Cooperative Credit Society and assessment for A.Y. 2020-21 concluded on 20.09.2022 assessing the income at Rs.6,94,42,436/- after making addition for unexplained unsecured loans and disallowance of interest u/s.80P(2)(d) of the Act at Rs.6,66,66,023/- and Rs.27,76,413/- respectively. Assessee failed to appear before ld. Assessing Officer and the assessment order has been framed as Best Judgment Assessment u/s.144 of the Act. Thereafter, assessee preferred appeal before ld.CIT(A) and filed the written submissions copy of which are placed from page 14 to 157 of the paper book dated 08.12.2025. Assessee has filed submissions and case laws placed at page 158 to 178 of the paper book. However, the appeal filed by the assessee before ld.CIT(A) was belated by around 8 months which has not been condoned. Reasons stated before ld.CIT(A) for the delay in filing of appeal reads as under :

"We could not file the IT appeal within the time limit prescribed under the act for the assessment year 2020-21 due to the following grounds-

1.

Till the previous assessment year the Income Tax department used to send communications by letter and notices by registered post and many times the letters/notices were served personally by the Income Tax staff department to the assessee.

2.

For the first time in the history, the government of India has taken the initiative for e-proceedings and e-assessment all the communications were posted on the Income Tax portal.

3.

We are managing our business with 2 staff and we are not well educated and not familiar with e-proceedings and faceless assessment.

4.

We have not seen the order passed u/s.144 of the IT act which was posted on the IT portal as there was no practice to check the mail on regular basis.

5.

We received a call from Income Tax department to ascertain whether the we have has paid the tax as per demand or filed the appeal against the said order. Only then we came to know about this assessment and shocked to see the high demand raised.

6.

Immediately after seeing the order we rushed to our Income Tax consultant but unfortunately the consultant was busy in marriage preparations of his daughter.

7.

There was no intentional delay in filing the Income Tax appeal."

5.

Considering the averments made by the assessee explained the reasons for delay, we are satisfied that ‘reasonable cause’ prevented the assessee to file the appeal within the stipulated time. We note that the delay is not intentional and assessee would not have gained from filing the appeal with a delay. We therefore in light of judgments of Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Collector, Land Acquisition, Anantnag & Anr. Vs. Mst. Katiji & Ors. reported in (1987) 2 SCC 107 and in the case of Inder Singh Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh judgment dated 21.03.2025 (2025 INSC 382) condone the delay in filing the appeal before ld.CIT(A) and admit the appeal for adjudication.

6.

Since ld.CIT(A) has not decided on merits of the case, we in the larger interest of justice deem it proper to remit back

4 The Belgaum Bakers Coop. Credit Society Ltd. the issues raised in the instant appeal to the file of ld.CIT(A) for afresh adjudication. Needless to mention that ld.CIT(A) in the set aside proceedings shall afford reasonable opportunity to the assessee. Assessee is directed to provide updated email id and contact detail on the ITBA portal. Assessee is also directed to remain vigilant and not to take adjournment unless otherwise required for reasonable cause. Impugned order is set aside and effective grounds of appeal raised by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes.

7.

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes.

Order pronounced on this 29th day of June, 2026. (PAVAN KUMAR GADALE) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Panaji/Pune; दिन ांक / Dated : 29th June, 2026. Satish Satish Kumar Madishetty आदेश की प्रतिलिपि अग्रेपिि / Copy of the Order forwarded to : अपील र्थी / The Appellant. 1. प्रत्यर्थी / The Respondent.

2.3.

The Pr. CIT concerned. विभ गीय प्रतितनधि, आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण, Panaji 4. ‘DB’ Bench / DR, ITAT, Panaji ‘DB’ Bench ग र्ड फ़ इल / Guard File. 5. आिेश नुस र / BY ORDER, ////

More judgments on Section 144B

All 10,521 judgments and leading authorities on Section 144B →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →