R754 KOLAKKANATHM PRIMARY AGRICULTURAL COOPERATIVE CREDIT SOCIETY LIMITED,PERAMBALUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 1, PERAMBALUR

Briefly stated that facts of the case are that the appellant is a Co-operative Society duly incorporated under Tamilnadu Co-operative Society Act, 1983. It is classified as a primary agricultural co-operative society. No regular return of income under the provisions of section 139(1) of the Act was filed by the appellant society for the Assessment Year 2019-20. However, based on the information that the appellant co-operative society made cash deposit in the account maintained with bank account. The Jurisdictional Assessing Officer formed an opinion that the income got escaped assessment from tax. Accordingly, a notice u/s.148 of the Act was issued on 29.03.2023 calling upon the appellant to file the return of income for the A.Y.2019-20. The appellant society neither complied with the notice u/s.148 of the Act nor the notices u/s.142(1) of the Act. In the circumstances, the Assessing Officer proceeded with framing the assessment order vide order dated 20.01.2024 passed u/s.147 r.w.s 144B of the Income Tax Act, 1961at a total income of Rs.5,45,29,460/-. While doing so, the Assessing Officer brought to tax entire cash deposits of Rs.5,37,01,883/- made in the bank account maintained with Tiruchirapalli Dt Central Co-op Bank Ltd, Padalur and also denied the claim for deduction u/s.80P of the Act of Rs.8,27,574/-.

Being aggrieved by the above assessment order, the appellant preferred an appeal before ld.CIT(A) with a delay of 80 days. The appellant also filed petition seeking the condonation of delay on the ground that delay had occurred on account of negligence of Chartered Accountant. However, the ld.CIT(A) had dismissed the appeal in limine on the grounds of delay by refusing to condone the delay by holding that the appellant could not demonstrate any sufficient cause for the delay after referring to numerous judicial precedents.

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 80 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 the delay occurred on account of negligence of the Chartered Accountant, 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. Order pronounced in the open court on 21st May, 2026.