What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal condoned the delay, acknowledging the sufficient cause shown by the assessee. It decided to restore the matter to the First Appellate Authority for fresh adjudication, granting the assessee another opportunity to present its case.

The assessee, a cooperative society, filed appeals with a significant delay due to its office bearers' lack of familiarity with tax proceedings and a tax practitioner's failure to represent them. The appellate orders were passed ex-parte as the assessee did not comply with notices.

What were the issues?

Whether the delay in filing the appeal should be condoned and if the assessee should be granted another opportunity to present its case before the First Appellate Authority.

Aa539 Avalpoondurai Primary… vs ITO | ITAT Chennai 2026

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, ‘D’ BENCH, CHENNAI

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

Hearing: 18.06.2026Pronounced: 18.06.2026

आदेश/ O R D E R PER GEORGE GEORGE K, VICE PRESIDENT: These appeals filed by the assessee are directed against the orders of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi dated 16.08.2024 & 25.02.2026 passed under section 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter called ‘the Act’). The relevant Assessment Year is 2012-13.

ITA No.2565 & 2566CHNY/2026 - 2 - AA539 Aval Poondurai PACCS Ltd 2. There is a delay of 546 days in filing the appeal in ITA No.2565/CHNY/2026 before the Tribunal. The assessee-society has filed an affidavit and a petition for condonation of delay stating therein the reasons for delay. It was stated that the assessee is a Primary Agricultural Co-operative Credit Society comprising agriculturists from a small local jurisdiction and that its office bearers were not conversant with the procedural requirements of income-tax appellate proceedings. It was submitted that the assessee society had entrusted its tax matters to a tax practitioner, who failed to effectively represent the matter before the FAA, and consequently, the assessee remained unaware of the appellate order. The assessee came to know of the order only upon receipt of the FAA’s order confirming the penalty levied by AO in February 2026. Immediately, the assessee society engaged a Chartered Accountant who, upon verification of the income-tax portal, informed the assessee about the order passed by the FAA in the quantum appeal. Thereafter, the assessee promptly obtained legal advice and filed the present appeal. On perusal of the reasons stated, we are of the view that no latches can be attributed to the assessee as there is sufficient cause for belated filing of this appeal. Hence, we condone the delay and proceed to dispose off the appeal on merits.

ITA No.2565 & 2566CHNY/2026 - 3 - AA539 Aval Poondurai PACCS Ltd 3. At the very outset, we notice that the orders of First Appellate Authority (FAA) in the quantum appeal as well as the penalty appeal were ex-parte, since there were no compliance from the assessee to various notices issued from the office of the First Appellate Authority.

The Ld. AR submitted that the assessee is a Primary Agricultural Co-operative Credit Society Ltd., registered under the provisions of the Tamil Nadu Co-operative Societies Act, 1983. It was submitted that the assessee-society comprises agriculturists from a small local jurisdiction and that its office bearers were not conversant with the procedural requirements of income-tax appellate proceedings. Consequently, the assessee-society had entrusted its income-tax matters to a tax practitioner, who failed to effectively represent the matter before the FAA. As a result, the assessee-society remained unaware of the hearing notices issued by the FAA and the appellate orders were passed ex-parte. The Ld. AR contended that the non- appearance before the FAA was neither deliberate nor wilful and hence, pleaded that one more opportunity be granted to the assessee by restoring the matter to the file of the FAA, so as to enable it to effectively present its case. The Ld.AR undertook that she would duly appear and furnish the necessary details as and when called for.

ITA No.2565 & 2566CHNY/2026 - 4 - AA539 Aval Poondurai PACCS Ltd 5. The Ld.DR submitted that adequate opportunities were provided from the offices of the FAA and there is no violation of principles of natural justice.

We have heard rival submissions and perused the materials on record. We notice that the proceedings before the FAA in quantum appeal as well as penalty appeal were concluded ex-parte, as the assessee failed to respond to the notices issued by the office of the FAA. We strongly deprecate the nonchalant attitude of the assessee. The Ld.AR submitted that the office bearers of the assessee society were not conversant with the procedural requirements of income-tax appellate proceedings and had entrusted its income-tax matters to a tax practitioner, who failed to effectively represent the matters before the FAA, and consequently, remained ex-parte. The Ld.AR only pleaded that one more opportunity may be provided to the assessee and undertook that she would duly appear and furnish the necessary details as and when called for. In light of the submissions of Ld.AR and in the interest of justice and fair play, we are of the view that the matter ought to be restored to the files of the FAA. Accordingly, the matter is remitted to the files of the FAA for fresh adjudication. The FAA shall afford reasonable opportunity of hearing to

ITA No.2565 & 2566CHNY/2026 - 5 - AA539 Aval Poondurai PACCS Ltd the assessee. The assessee is directed to co-operate with the Revenue and shall not seek unnecessary adjournment. It is ordered accordingly.

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes.

Order pronounced in the open court on 18th June,2026 at Chennai.

Sd/- Sd/- (एस.आर. रघुनाथा) (जॉज� जॉज� के) (GEORGE GEORGE K) (S.R. RAGHUNATHA) उपा�य� /VICE PRESIDENT लेखा सद�य/ACCOUNTANT MEMBER चे�नई/Chennai, �दनांक/Dated, the 18th 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, Coimbatore 4. �वभागीय ��त�न�ध/DR 5. गाड� फाईल/GF. By Order Digitally signed by REKHA REKHA SENTHIL RAJ SENTHIL RAJ Date: 2026.06.22 12:33:56 +05'30'

AA539 AVALPOONDURAI PRIMARY AGRICULTURAL COOPERATIVE SOCIETY LIMITED,ERODE vs. ITO WARD 2(1), ERODE

What did the Tribunal hold?

What were the facts?

What were the issues?

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Recent GST High Court judgments