CHOPDA MERCHANT CO-OPERATIVE CREDIT SOCIETY LIMITED,PUNE vs. DY. CIT, CIRCLE 2, JALGAON

ITA 3352/PUN/2025Status: DisposedITAT Pune30 September 2026AY 2013-147 pages
AI SummaryDismissed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal held that the delay of approximately 1127-1128 days in filing the appeals for both AYs 2011-12 and 2013-14 was inordinate and did not warrant condonation. Applying the principles laid down by the Supreme Court in Esha Bhattacharjee, the Tribunal noted that inordinate delay requires a stricter approach. The assessee's explanation, as detailed in the affidavit, was found to be vague and lacking in sufficient cause. Specific dates for elections were not provided, and the claim of dependence on counsel was not substantiated with names or specific responsibilities. The Tribunal observed a casual or defiant attitude from the assessee, evidenced by non-compliance with notices from the Assessing Officer and the CIT(A). The reasons provided were not considered sufficient to justify the substantial delay. Therefore, the delay was not condoned, and the appeals were dismissed.

What were the facts?

The assessee, Chopda Merchant Co-operative Credit Society Ltd., filed two appeals (ITA Nos. 3353 & 3352/PUN/2025) before the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) Pune Bench for Assessment Years (AYs) 2011-12 and 2013-14. The appeals challenged orders passed by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi, dated 29.09.2022, which confirmed ex-parte assessment orders dated 24.12.2018. The assessee did not file returns for the relevant AYs. The Assessing Officer initiated proceedings due to significant cash deposits and issued notices and summons, which were not complied with, leading to ex-parte assessment orders. The assessee also failed to appear or comply with notices issued by the Ld. CIT(A). The appeals before the ITAT were filed with a delay of approximately 1127-1128 days.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the delay of approximately 1127-1128 days in filing the appeal before the ITAT for AY 2011-12 is condonable under Section 253(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, on the grounds of sufficient cause, as argued by the assessee? 2. Whether the delay of approximately 1127-1128 days in filing the appeal before the ITAT for AY 2013-14 is condonable under Section 253(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, on the grounds of sufficient cause, as argued by the assessee? Assessee's Contentions: The assessee argued that the delay was not due to deliberate negligence but was caused by the earlier counsel's misadvice, non-advice, negligence, and involvement in the society's election process which continued until 2023. They claimed ignorance of the time limit for filing appeals before the ITAT and stated that decisions were taken by the managing committee. The assessee relied on the principles laid down by the Supreme Court in Esha Bhattacharjee vs. Managing Committee of Raghunathpur Nafar Academy, emphasizing a liberal and justice-oriented approach. Revenue's Contentions: The revenue did not explicitly present arguments in the judgment, but the Tribunal heard the Learned DR and perused the records.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 250,Section 148,Section 131,Section 144,Section 253(1)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, PUNE BENCH “SMC”, PUNE

Before: SHRI Dr. DIPAK P. RIPOTE & SHRI VINAY BHAMORE

For Respondent: Smt. Sonal L Sonkavde, Addl. CIT

PER BENCH : These two appeals are filed by the assessee against the order of the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), NFAC, Delhi [Ld.CIT(A)], passed u/s. 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (‘the Act’) for AYs 2011-12 and 2013-14 on 29.09.2022, emanating from the ex-parte assessment order dated 24.12.2018. 2. Since, issue involved is same, for the sake of conveniencethese two appeals were heard together and are disposed of by this common order.

3.

Basic Facts :  In this case, hearing was scheduled on 12.02.2026, none appeared on behalf of the assessee, hence, case was adjourned to 02.04.2026.  On 02

The order continues below.

Read the full judgment

A free account opens 10 full judgments a month. Re-reading one you have already opened does not count again.

Create a free accountSign in

See plans and prices

The summary, the parties, the sections and the citations above are open to everyone and always will be. Only the text of the order and the PDF are metered.

More judgments on Section 148

All 35,022 judgments and leading authorities on Section 148 →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →