THE PARAVADI DUDH UTPADAK SAHAKARI MANDLI LIMITED,PANCHMAHAL vs. THE ITO, WARD-1, GODHRA

PDF · subscribers
ITA 2502/AHD/2025Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad17 June 2026AY 2019-204 pages
AI SummaryPartly Allowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal before the CIT(A), noting that the reasons for delay were not considered. The matters were remanded back to the CIT(A) for adjudication on merits.

What were the facts?

The assessee, a rural milk co-operative society, failed to file its return of income. The Assessing Officer made additions under Section 69A. The assessee's appeal before the CIT(A) was dismissed in limine due to a significant delay.

What were the issues?

Whether the CIT(A) erred in dismissing the appeal solely on grounds of delay without considering the reasons provided, and whether the additions and penalty proceedings are sustainable on merits.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 69A,Section 115BBE,Section 271AAC,Section 234A,Section 234B,Section 234F,Section 148A,Section 148,Section 147,Section 144B,Section 272A(1)(d),Section 249(3)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, AHMEDABAD ‘D’ BENCH, AHMEDABAD

For Appellant: Shri MK Patel, Advocate
For Respondent: Shri Rameshwar P. Meena, Sr. DR
Hearing: 30.04.2026Pronounced: 17.06.2026

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AHMEDABAD ‘D’ BENCH, AHMEDABAD BEFORE DR. BRR KUMAR, VICE PRESIDENT AND MS. SUCHITRA KAMBLE, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA No.2443/AHD/2025 (Assessment Year: 2019-20) & ITA No.2502/AHD/2025 (Assessment Year: 2019-20) M/s. The Paravadi Dudh Utpadak The Income Tax Officer, Sahakari Mandli Limited, Ward-1, Paravadi, At Godhra, Vs. Civil Lines, Panchmahal Godhra, Gujarat – 389120 Gujarat - 389001 PAN: AAFAT1738C (Appellant) : (Respondent) Assessee by : Shri MK Patel, Advocate Respondent by : Shri Rameshwar P. Meena, Sr. DR Date of Hearing : 30.04.2026 Date of Pronouncement : 17.06.2026 O R D E R PER : SUCHITRA KAMBLE, J M: These appeals filed by the assessee are against the orders passed by the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi [in short “CIT(A)”] dated 27.08.2025 for the Assessment Year (in short “AY”) 2019-20. 2. The assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal in ITA No.2443/AHD/2025: “1.0 The learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), NFAC has erred in law and on facts in dismissing the appeal in limine merely on account of delay in filing of 338 days, without appreciating the peculiar facts and circumstances of the appellant being a rural milk co-operative society functioning in a backward area.

ITA No.2443/AHD/2025 &ITA No.2502/AHD/2025 M/s. The Paravadi Dudh Utpadak Sahakari Mandli Limited 1.1 The learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), NFAC has failed to appreciate that the delay in filing the appeal was duly explained as being attributable to lack of knowledge of income-tax law, absence of professional assistance, and bona fide ignorance, which constituted 'sufficient cause' within the meaning of section 249(3) of the Act and as laid down in binding judicial precedents. 2.0 The learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), NFAC has erred in not adjudicating the appeal on merits and dismissing the same in limine, thereby depriving the appellant of statutory right of appeal and effective adjudication on additions of ₹1,18,12,000/- made under section 69A rws 115BBE. 3.0 The learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), NFAC has erred in law and on facts in confirming the initiation of penalty proceedings under section 271AACof the Income Tax Act, 1961. 4.0 The learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), NFAC erred in law and on facts has confirmed the charging interest under section 234A, 234B and 234F of the Income Tax Act, 1961. 5.0 The appellant craves leave to add to, alter, delete or modify any of the above grounds of appeal either before or at the time of hearing of this appeal.”

3.

The assessee did not file its return of income for AY 2019-20. During the year the assessee made cash deposits of Rs.42,000/- and withdrawals to the extent of Rs.1,17,70,000/-. The case of the assessee was reopened and accordingly the JAO passed an order under clause (d) of section 148A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short “the Act”) on 24.03.2023. Subsequently, notice u/s 148 of the Act was issued to the assessee on 24.03.2023. The assessee did not file any details or filed any submissions and therefore the Assessing Officer (in short “the AO”) passed order u/s 147/144B of the Act on 21.12.2023 thereby determining total income at Rs.1,18,12,000/- and making the addition u/s 69A of the Act.

4.

Being aggrieved by the assessment order, the assessee filed appeal before the CIT(A). The CIT(A) dismissed the appeal of the assessee.

5.

The Ld. Authorised Representative (in short “Ld. AR”) for the assessee submitted that the CIT(A) dismissed the appeal only on the ground of delay and has not decided on merit, therefore the matter may be remanded back to the file of the CIT(A) for adjudicating the issues on merits. 2

ITA No.2443/AHD/2025 &ITA No.2502/AHD/2025 M/s. The Paravadi Dudh Utpadak Sahakari Mandli Limited 6. The Ld. Departmental Representative (in short “Ld. DR”) for the Revenue relied upon the assessment order and the order of the CIT(A).

7.

We have heard both the parties and perused all the relevant materials available on record. It is pertinent to note that the assessee filed appeal before the CIT(A) belatedly for 11 months, for which the reason for delay has been set out in Form 35 filed before the CIT(A) in column 15 which was not at all considered by the CIT(A). The reason for delay before the CIT(A) was thoroughly explained and hence the delay is condoned. The matter is remanded back to the file of the CIT(A) for adjudicating the issues contested by the assessee on merits as per Income Tax Act. Needless to say the assessee be given opportunity of hearing.

8.

Therefore, ITA No.2443/AHD/2025 is partly allowed for statistical purposes.

9.

As relates to ITA No.2502/AHD/2025, there was delay of 353 days in filing the appeal before the CIT(A). The same is condoned. The said appeal is contesting the penalty u/s 272A(1)(d) of the Act. This appeal is also remanded back to the file of the CIT(A) for proper adjudication of the issues contested therein as per Income Tax Act. Needless to say the assessee be given opportunity of hearing by following principles of natural justice. Thus, ITA No.2502/AHD/2025 is partly allowed for statistical purposes.

10.

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

Order pronounced in the open court on 17.06.2026

Sd/- Sd/- (DR. BRR KUMAR) (SUCHITRA KAMBLE) VICE PRESIDENT JUDICIAL MEMBER Ahmedabad; Dated: 17.06.2026

ITA No.2443/AHD/2025 &ITA No.2502/AHD/2025 M/s. The Paravadi Dudh Utpadak Sahakari Mandli Limited

* Kishore, Sr. P.S. Copy of the Order forwarded to: 1. The Appellant 2. The Respondent 3. CIT- concerned 4. DR, ITAT, Ahmedabad 5. Guard File By order,

Assistant Registrar/Sr.PS/PS ITAT, Ahmedabad Bench

More judgments on Section 69A

All 15,297 judgments and leading authorities on Section 69A →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →