THE THURAIYUR CO-OPERATIVE RURAL CREDIT SOCIETY LTD,TRICHY vs. INCOMETAX OFFICER, WARD 2(1) TRICHY/, TRICHY

I humbly submit that the learned Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) erred in law and on facts in dismissing the appeal in limine solely on the ground of limitation, without adjudicating the grounds on merits, thereby violating the principles of natural justice and the mandate of section 250(6) of the Income-tax Act, 1961.

I humbly submit that the appellant society was formed for the benefit of agriculturists and the general public, and that denial of statutory benefits, unwarranted additions, or imposition of tax burden would seriously affect members' funds; therefore, the issues ought to have been adjudicated on merits in accordance with the principles of natural justice.

I humbly submit that the learned CIT(A) failed to appreciate that the appellant is a Primary Agricultural Co-operative Credit Society, registered under the Tamil Nadu Co-operative Societies Act, 1983, functioning under strict statutory supervision for the welfare of agriculturists and rural communities, and that the issues involved required adjudication on merits rather than rejection on technical grounds.

I humbly submit that the learned CIT(A) erred in rejecting the application for condonation of delay without appreciating that the delay occurred due to bona fide and unavoidable circumstances, as the person entrusted with tax compliance failed to bring statutory notices to the knowledge of the Society's management, whose members are not conversant with income-tax procedures.

I humbly submit that the learned CIT (A) failed to consider that during the relevant period the appellant maintained its books of account entirely in manual form, in accordance with cooperative practices prevalent during FY 2015-16, and due to the absence of computerized

I humbly submit that the learned CIT (A) erred in law by adopting a hyper-technical approach and ignoring settled judicial principles that substantial justice must prevail over procedural technicalities, especially when dismissal of the appeal results in denial of an effective opportunity to contest a high-pitched assessment.

I humbly submit that the learned Assessing Officer erred in law and on facts in treating cash deposits amounting to ₹1,12,93,002/- as unexplained money under section 69A, without appreciating the nature of the appellant's regulated activities and the statutory framework governing cooperative societies.

I humbly submit that the learned Assessing Officer failed to appreciate that the cash deposits represented repayment of loans by members, collections from Public Distribution System operations, and receipts connected with Government welfare schemes, all arising from the normal, statutory, and transparent activities of the appellant society.

I humbly submit that the learned Assessing Officer erred in ignoring the fact that under cooperative regulations the appellant cannot retain cash exceeding ₹15, 00,000/- at its premises, and therefore surplus cash collected from members and Government-linked activities compulsorily deposited into bank accounts. Was

I humbly submit that the learned authorities failed to appreciate that the appellant's books of account were audited under the Tamil Nadu Co-operative Societies Act and subject to continuous supervision by the Department of Cooperative Audit, Government of Tamil Nadu, thereby negating the allegation of unexplained money under section 69A,

I humbly submit that the impugned orders are contrary to law, facts, and binding judicial precedents of the Hon'ble Madras High Court and Chennai ITAT Benches, unsustainable in law, and liable to be set aside.

The assessee being aggrieved with the above preferred an appeal before the Ld. CIT (A) with a delay of 162 days. Again, the matter was not pursued by the assessee before the Ld. CIT (A) and delay in filing of appeal was also not explained to the satisfaction of the Ld. CIT (A), hence, he dismissed the appeal of the assessee and confirmed the order of the AO. The assessee being further aggrieved preferred an appeal before us in the present appeal along with application for stay of demand. It is observed that the appeal filed before us is also time barred by 69 days. As the matter pertains to a Cooperative Society and money of common citizen is involved, taking a lenient view and delay before us is condoned. Further, as the matter was never adjudicated on merits and as mentioned (supra). The assessee never turned up before the authorities below, on the request of the Ld. AR we are restoring the matter back to the file of the AO, subject to a cost of Rs. 10,000/- (Ten thousand only) to be deposited with Tamil Nadu State Legal Service Authority by the assessee within 30 days from the date of this order. The AO directed to frame the assessment de-novo, after giving proper opportunity of being heard to the assessee. As far as the issue pertaining to the claim of deduction u/s. 80P is concerned the AO is directed to follow the decision of the Hon’ble Jurisdictional High Court in the case of [2026] 187 taxmann.com 97 (Mad.) T943 Vickrapandiyam Primary Agricultural Co- operative Credit Society Ltd. v. CCIT. The assessee is directed to be vigilant enough this time and participate in the assessment proceedings actively without seeking any adjournment. In the result, the grounds raised by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes. The Stay Application No.54/Chny/2026 filed by the assessee is dismissed as the matter has been restored back to the file of the AO.

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes and the Stay Application is dismissed with the above observations and direction. Order pronounced on the 24th day of June, 2026, in Chennai.