G1633 CHEYYUR PACCS,KANCHIPURAM vs. ITO, NCW-22(1), CHENNAI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 2542/CHNY/2026Status: DisposedITAT Chennai24 June 2026AY 2018-1912 pages
AI SummaryAllowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The tribunal condoned the delay, stating that the reasons provided by the assessee, including lack of knowledge, illness of the secretary, and changes in management, constituted a sufficient cause. The matter was restored to the CIT(A) for adjudication on merits.

What were the facts?

The assessee, a Primary Agricultural Co-operative Credit Society, filed appeals before the CIT(A) with a significant delay. The CIT(A) dismissed the appeals without adjudicating on merits due to the delay.

What were the issues?

Whether the CIT(A) was justified in dismissing the appeals in limine due to delay without considering the sufficiency of the cause for the delay.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 249(3),Section 147,Section 144,Section 144B,Section 69A,Section 271AAC,Section 270A,Section 272A(1)(d),Section 271A,Section 271B

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, ‘D’ BENCH, CHENNAI

Before: SHRI GEORGE GEORGE K & SHRI S.R. RAGHUNATHA

Hearing: 18.06.2026Pronounced: 24.06.2026

आदेश/ O R D E R PER GEORGE GEORGE K, VICE PRESIDENT: These appeals filed by the assessee are directed against six orders of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi all dated 14.02.2026 passed

ITA Nos.2539 to 2544/CHNY/2026 - 2 - G1633 Cheyyur PACCS under section 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter called ‘the Act’). The relevant Assessment Year is 2018-19.

ITA No.2359/CHNY/2026 2. Brief Facts of the case are as follows: The assessee is a Primary Agricultural Co-operative Credit Society registered under the Tamil Nadu Co-operative Societies Act. The members of the Society are predominantly agriculturists and the Society is engaged in providing agricultural credit facilities, crop loans, jewel loans and other financial assistance to its members. The assessment for the relevant assessment year was completed ex- parte u/s 147 r.w.s. 144 r.w.s. 144B of the Act vide order dated 04.03.2024 wherein additions aggregating to Rs.1,34,20,000/- were made towards unexplained cash deposits and unexplained money u/s 69A of the Act, resulting in substantial tax demand.

3.

Aggrieved by the assessment order, the assessee preferred an appeal before the CIT(A). However, the appeal was filed on 01.12.2025 with a delay of 607 days. Along with Form No.35, the assessee filed a petition seeking condonation of delay explaining the circumstances which prevented it from filing the appeal within the prescribed time. The CIT(A), however, was not satisfied with

ITA Nos.2539 to 2544/CHNY/2026 - 3 - G1633 Cheyyur PACCS the explanation furnished and accordingly declined to condone the delay and dismissed the appeal in limine without adjudicating the issues on merits.

4.

Against the order of the CIT(A), the assessee is in appeal before us. The Ld.AR submitted that the CIT(A) erred in rejecting the condonation petition by adopting an overly technical approach and without appreciating the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case. It was submitted that the assessee is not a commercial concern run by professionally qualified personnel but a Primary Agricultural Co-operative Credit Society whose members are mostly agriculturists having little or no knowledge of income-tax laws and appellate procedures. The Ld.AR drew our attention to the affidavit filed by the present Secretary of the Society wherein it has been explained that the members of the Society and the office bearers lacked adequate knowledge of income-tax compliance and appellate procedures; the then Secretary, Mr. Mahendran, who was managing the affairs of the Society, was suffering from severe Low Back Ache (LBA) and remained under prolonged medical treatment, resulting in his inability to effectively discharge his responsibilities; medical records supporting the illness of the Secretary were produced before the

ITA Nos.2539 to 2544/CHNY/2026 - 4 - G1633 Cheyyur PACCS CIT(A); the Society had approached the Income-tax Department and, based on the advice received, initiated the process for change of PAN status from Firm to AOP, which resulted in allotment of a new PAN and consequent confusion regarding tax compliance matters; there were successive changes in the office of Secretary, first from Mr. Mahendran to Mr. Kesavan and subsequently to Mr. Balu, resulting in considerable delay in understanding and taking charge of pending tax matters; after the new Secretary became aware of the tax proceedings and the implications arising therefrom, professional assistance was sought and appeals were filed without any further delay. The Ld.AR submitted that the delay was neither intentional nor deliberate and that the assessee had no reason whatsoever to derive any benefit by postponing the filing of the appeal. It was argued that the explanation furnished by the assessee was bona fide and constituted sufficient cause within the meaning of section 249(3) of the Act. The Ld.AR further submitted that refusal to condone the delay would result in grave prejudice to the assessee because substantial additions made in the assessment order would remain unexamined on merits merely on account of procedural delay. The Ld.AR placed reliance upon the following decisions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court for the proposition that substantial justice should

ITA Nos.2539 to 2544/CHNY/2026 - 5 - G1633 Cheyyur PACCS prevail over technical considerations and that a liberal approach is warranted while considering applications for condonation of delay:- i. Collector, Land Acquisition vs. Mst. Katiji & Others (167 ITR 471)

ii. N. Balakrishnan vs. M. Krishnamurthy (1998) 7 SCC 123

iii. Improvement Trust, Ludhiana vs. Ujagar Singh (2010) 6 SCC 786

5.

The Ld.DR supported the order of the CIT(A). It was submitted that the delay involved is substantial, being 607 days, and that the assessee had failed to explain the delay day-by-day. According to the Revenue, the reasons furnished by the assessee were general in nature and did not satisfactorily explain the entire period of delay. The Ld.DR therefore submitted that the CIT(A) was justified in declining to condone the delay.

6.

We have heard the rival submissions and perused the material available on record. The short issue arising for our consideration is whether the learned CIT(A) was justified in refusing to condone the delay of 607 days in filing the appeal and consequently dismissing the appeal in limine without adjudicating the issues on merits. The undisputed facts are that the assessee

ITA Nos.2539 to 2544/CHNY/2026 - 6 - G1633 Cheyyur PACCS is a Primary Agricultural Co-operative Credit Society registered under the provisions of the Tamil Nadu Co-operative Societies Act and its members are predominantly agriculturists. The assessment was completed ex parte u/s.147 read with sections 144 and 144B of the Act on 04.03.2024. The appeal before the CIT(A) was filed on 01.12.2025 with a delay of 607 days. The assessee, along with the appeal, filed a petition seeking condonation of delay supported by an affidavit of the present Secretary and also produced medical records relating to the earlier Secretary who was managing the affairs of the Society during the relevant period.

7.

From the records, we find that the assessee had consistently explained that the delay occurred on account of a combination of circumstances, namely, lack of familiarity with income-tax proceedings on the part of the office bearers of the Society, prolonged illness of the then Secretary who was responsible for handling the affairs of the Society, change of Secretaries during the relevant period, confusion arising from the process undertaken for change of PAN status from Firm to AOP which resulted in allotment of a new PAN, and the consequent delay in obtaining professional assistance and initiating appellate

ITA Nos.2539 to 2544/CHNY/2026 - 7 - G1633 Cheyyur PACCS proceedings. The affidavit filed by the present Secretary narrates the sequence of events leading to the delay and the same is corroborated by medical records relating to the previous Secretary. The CIT(A) rejected the explanation primarily on the ground that the assessee had failed to explain each day's delay and that the reasons furnished were not sufficient to account for the entire period of delay. In our considered opinion, the approach adopted by the CIT(A) is unduly technical and not in consonance with the settled principles governing condonation of delay. The expression "sufficient cause" employed in section 249(3) of the Act is required to receive a liberal and pragmatic construction so as to advance substantial justice. It is now well settled that while considering an application for condonation of delay, the authority is required to examine whether the explanation offered is bona fide and whether the delay occurred on account of circumstances beyond the control of the appellant. The law does not require a pedantic explanation of every single day's delay when the overall facts and circumstances satisfactorily demonstrate that the delay was neither intentional nor attributable to deliberate inaction.

ITA Nos.2539 to 2544/CHNY/2026 - 8 - G1633 Cheyyur PACCS 8. In the present case, the assessee is not a corporate entity managed by professionally qualified personnel. It is a co-operative credit society catering to agriculturists. The explanation that the office bearers lacked adequate knowledge of tax laws and appellate procedures cannot be brushed aside in the peculiar facts of the case. More importantly, the illness of the then Secretary, who was responsible for managing the affairs of the Society, stands supported by medical records. It is also a matter of record that there were successive changes in the office of Secretary and that the Society was simultaneously dealing with issues relating to change of PAN status. Though each of these circumstances, viewed in isolation, may not explain the entire delay, when considered cumulatively they furnish a reasonable and plausible explanation for the delay in preferring the appeal. We further find that there is nothing on record to indicate that the delay was deliberate, wilful or motivated by any mala fide intention. The Revenue has not brought any material before us to demonstrate that the assessee stood to gain any advantage by delaying the filing of the appeal. On the contrary, the circumstances placed on record indicate that once the present management became aware of the consequences arising from the assessment order and demand, professional assistance was obtained and steps were

ITA Nos.2539 to 2544/CHNY/2026 - 9 - G1633 Cheyyur PACCS taken to file the appeals. Such conduct is consistent with the bona fide explanation advanced by the assessee.

9.

The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Collector, Land Acquisition v. Mst. Katiji & Others 167 ITR 471 (SC) has held that when substantial justice and technical considerations are pitted against each other, the cause of substantial justice deserves to be preferred. Similarly, in N. Balakrishnan v. M. Krishnamurthy 7 SCC 123, the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that the length of delay is not material and that acceptability of the explanation is the only criterion. The principles laid down in the aforesaid decisions require a justice-oriented approach while considering applications for condonation of delay.

10.

In the facts before us, substantial additions have been made in the assessment order and the assessee seeks an opportunity to challenge the same on merits. Refusal to condone the delay would result in shutting the doors of appellate remedy and denying adjudication on merits. In our considered view, the explanation furnished by the assessee constitutes sufficient cause within the meaning of section 249(3) of the Act. The CIT(A) was

ITA Nos.2539 to 2544/CHNY/2026 - 10 - G1633 Cheyyur PACCS therefore not justified in dismissing the appeal in limine merely on technical grounds.

11.

Considering the totality of facts and circumstances, the affidavit filed by the present Secretary, the medical records placed on record, the changes in management, the PAN-related issues and the absence of any mala fide conduct on the part of the assessee, we are satisfied that the assessee was prevented by sufficient cause from filing the appeal within the prescribed period. Accordingly, the delay of 607 days in filing the appeal before the CIT(A) is condoned. The impugned order of the CIT(A) is set aside and the matter is restored to his file with a direction to admit the appeal and dispose of the same on merits in accordance with law after affording adequate opportunity of hearing to the assessee. Since we have restored the matter to the file of the CIT(A), we refrain from expressing any opinion on the merits of the additions made in the assessment order. Accordingly, the grounds raised by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes.

ITA Nos.2539 to 2544/CHNY/2026 - 11 - G1633 Cheyyur PACCS ITA Nos.2540 to 2544/CHNY/2026 12. The assessee has filed these appeals against the orders of the CIT(A) dismissing the assessee’s appeals in limine on account of delay ranging from 504 to 506 days in filing the appeals against penalties levied u/s.271AAC / 270A / 272A(1)(d) / 271A / 271B of the Act. Since the reasons for the delay are identical to those considered by us in the connected quantum appeal in ITA No.2539/CHNY/2026, wherein the delay of 607 days was condoned and the matter was restored to the file of the CIT(A), we deem it appropriate to condone the delay in these appeals also. Accordingly, the impugned orders of the CIT(A) are set aside and the matters are restored to his file for fresh adjudication on merits in accordance with law, preferably along with the quantum appeal. It is ordered accordingly.

13.

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee in ITA Nos.2539 to 2544/CHNY/2026 are allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced in the open court on 24th June, 2026 at Chennai.

Sd/- Sd/- (एस.आर. रघुनाथा) (जॉज� जॉज� के) (S.R. RAGHUNATHA) (GEORGE GEORGE K) लेखा सद�य/ACCOUNTANT MEMBER उपा�य� /VICE PRESIDENT

ITA Nos.2539 to 2544/CHNY/2026 - 12 - G1633 Cheyyur PACCS

चे�नई/Chennai, �दनांक/Dated, the 24th June, 2026 RSR, Sr.PS आदेश क� ��त�ल�प अ�े�षत/Copy to: 1. अपीलाथ�/Appellant 2. ��यथ�/Respondent 3. आयकर आयु�त /CIT, Chennai 4. �वभागीय ��त�न�ध/DR 5. गाड� फाईल/GF. By Order Digitally signed by REKHA REKHA SENTHIL RAJ SENTHIL RAJ Date: 2026.06.25 17:26:04 +05'30'

More judgments on Section 249(3)

All 1,376 judgments and leading authorities on Section 249(3) →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →