What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal before the CIT(A) and remanded the matter back to the CIT(A) to consider the delay petition afresh and adjudicate the issues on merits. The assessee was given liberty to file supporting evidence.

The assessee, a cooperative milk producers society, filed an appeal with a delay of 104 days. The Assessing Officer had added undisclosed cash deposits to the assessee's income as no return was filed and no explanation was provided.

What were the issues?

Whether the delay in filing the appeal before the CIT(A) should be condoned and the matter adjudicated on merits, considering the assessee's nature and circumstances.

Thiruvalam Coop Milk Producers… vs ITO | ITAT Chennai 2026

Before: Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi & Shri S.R. Raghunatha

Hearing: 15.04.2026Pronounced: 29.04.2026

आदेश/O R D E R

PER S.S. VISWANETHRA RAVI, JUDICIAL MEMBER: This appeal filed by the assessee is directed against the order dated 19.08.2025 passed by the ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)/NFAC, Delhi [‘ld.CIT(A)’ in short] for Assessment Year 2018-19.

We find this appeal was filed with a delay of 104 days. The assessee filed an affidavit explaining the reasons for the said delay. On

2 I.T.A. I.T.A. No.796/Chny/2026 I.T.A. I.T.A. No.796/Chny/2026 No.796/Chny/2026 No.796/Chny/2026

perusal of the same and upon hearing both the parties, we find the

reasons are bonafide which really prevented the assessee in filing the

appeal in time. Thus, the delay of 104 days condoned.

At the outset, it is noted that the Assessing Officer [‘AO’ in short]

determined the total income of the assessee at Rs.81,70,574/- on

account of variation as per undisclosed cash deposits in Vellore District

Central Cooperative Bank Limited. According to the AO, no return of

income filed and many opportunities were rendered to the assessee to

explain the source of said cash deposits. Having no option the AO

preferred to add the said cash deposits to the total income of the

assessee to his best judgment, against which the assessee preferred an

appeal before the ld.CIT(A) with a delay of 299 days. It was explained

that the assessee is a primary society not aware of the procedures and

due to said technicalities assessee could not file the appeal in time. The

ld.CIT(A) by recording his reasons vide Para no. 5.2.1 of the impugned

order held that the reasons explained by the assessee are not acceptable.

3 I.T.A. I.T.A. No.796/Chny/2026 I.T.A. I.T.A. No.796/Chny/2026 No.796/Chny/2026 No.796/Chny/2026

The ld.AR submits that the assessee consists of farmers and a

liberal view may be taken in remanding the matter to the file of the

ld.CIT(A) to condone the delay and to adjudicate the issues on merits.

The ld.DR drew our attention to the Para no.6 of the impugned order

and vehemently argued that no substantive evidences furnished before

the ld.CIT(A) in stating that no person was available in overseeing the

functions of the assessee on day-to-day basis. The ld.DR supported the

order of the ld.CIT(A) in not condoning the delay.

Having heard both the parties and on perusal of records, we note

that the members of the assessee’s society are farmers situated in

remote villages. As it appear from the record, no compliance were made

before the AO and the ld.CIT(A) inspite of having many opportunities

given by the AO. Considering the submissions of the ld.AR and facts and

circumstances of the case and in the interest of justice, we deem it

appropriate to remand the matter to the file of the ld.CIT(A) to consider

the delay condonation petition afresh and condone the delay, adjudicate

the issues on merits. Thus, assessee is liberty to file evidences, if any, in

support of its claim. Assessee shall appear before the ld.CIT(A) in

4 I.T.A. I.T.A. No.796/Chny/2026 I.T.A. I.T.A. No.796/Chny/2026 No.796/Chny/2026 No.796/Chny/2026

compliance to the notices issued therein without fail. Thus, grounds

raised by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes.

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical

purposes. Order pronounced on 29th April, 2026 at Chennai.

Sd/- Sd/- (S.R. RAGHUNATHA) (S.S. VISWANETHRA RAVI) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER Chennai, Dated : 29.04.2026 JPV/- आदेशकी'ितिलिपअ.ेिषत/Copy to: 1. अपीलाथ&/Appellant, 2.'(थ&/ Respondent, 3. आयकरआयु//CIT, Chennai/Madurai/Coimbatore/Salem 4. िवभागीय'ितिनिध/DR & 5. गाड$ फाईल/GF.

PRASANNA Digitally signed by PRASANNA VANI JETTY VANI JETTY Date: 2026.05.04 10:40:02 +05'30'

THIRUVALAM COOP MILK PRODUCERS SOCIETY LTD.,VELLORE vs. ITO, WARD-1,, VELLORE

What did the Tribunal hold?

What were the facts?

What were the issues?

Recent GST High Court judgments