TARANGAN PARK SAHAKARI GRUHARACHANA SANSTHA MARYADIT,PUNE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 3(3) PUNE, PUNE

ITA 1451/PUN/2026Status: DisposedITAT Pune30 September 2026AY 2014-156 pages
AI SummaryPartly Allowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal condoned the delay of 3726 days in filing the appeal before the CIT(A). The Tribunal held that the condonation of delay is a matter of discretion and that the acceptability of the explanation is the sole criterion, not the length of the delay, as per *N. Balakrishnan vs. M. Krishnamurthy*. The Tribunal emphasized that when 'reasonable cause' exists, the delay may not be relevant, and Section 253(5) allows admission of appeals beyond the limitation period if sufficient cause is shown. Citing *Ramnath Sao vs. Gobardhan Sao and Others*, the Tribunal noted that courts should not adopt a pedantic approach and should condone delay when it is unintentional and caused by reasonable circumstances, prioritizing substantial justice. The Tribunal also referred to *Midas Polymer Compounds Pvt. Ltd.* and *CIT vs. K.S.P. Shanmugavel Nadai and Ors.*, where significant delays were condoned. Given the assessee's explanation, the Tribunal found a 'reasonable cause' for the delay. As there was no adjudication on merits by the lower authorities, the Tribunal set aside the impugned order and restored the issue to the file of the CIT(A) for adjudication on merits, after providing a reasonable opportunity of hearing to the assessee. The assessee was directed to provide updated contact details and remain vigilant.

What were the facts?

The assessee, Tarangan Park Sahakari Gruharachana Sanstha Maryadit, filed an appeal before the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) for Assessment Year 2014-15. The appeal was against the order of the Addl./JCIT(A)-2, Hyderabad, which stemmed from an intimation passed under Section 143(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The assessee is a cooperative society deriving income from maintenance charges and interest on deposits. The primary issue was a delay of 3726 days in filing the appeal before the CIT(A), which had dismissed the appeal without condoning the delay. The assessee attributed the delay to the ignorance of its managing committee members regarding income tax provisions, their advanced age, health conditions, and the non-availability of competent guidance.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the inordinate delay of 3726 days in filing the appeal before the CIT(A) can be condoned, considering the provisions of Section 253(5) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. Assessee's contentions: The assessee argued that the delay was due to the ignorance of its managing committee members regarding income tax laws, their advanced age and health issues, and the absence of competent guidance. They contended that these constituted a 'reasonable cause' for the delay and that the delay should be condoned in the interest of substantial justice, allowing for adjudication on merits. They relied on the principles laid down in *Ramnath Sao vs. Gobardhan Sao and Others* and *N. Balakrishnan vs. M. Krishnamurthy* by the Hon'ble Apex Court, and a coordinate bench decision in *Midas Polymer Compounds Pvt. Ltd.*. Revenue's contentions: The Revenue opposed the condonation of delay, arguing that the assessee failed to provide a satisfactory explanation for the inordinate delay of over ten years. They contended that the order of the CIT(A) dismissing the appeal deserved to be upheld.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 143(1),Section 253(5),Section 80P

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

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

Before: DR.MANISH BORAD

For Appellant: Shri D.R. Barve (virtual)
For Respondent: Dr. Amit Munde
Hearing: 25.08.2026Pronounced: 30.09.2026

The captioned appeal at the instance of assessee pertaining to A.Y. 2014-15 is directed against the order dated 09.01.2026 of ldAddl/JCIT(A)-2, Hyderabad emanating out of Intimation dated 22.01.2015 passed u/s.143(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short ‘the Act’).

2.

At the outset, ld. Counsel for the submitted that the assessee is a small cooperative society and deriving income from the maintenance charges and interest on deposits received from its Members. Officer bearers of the society works on Honorary. There was delay of 3726 days in preferring the appeal before ld.CIT(A) which came to be dismissed without condoning the delay. Demonstrating the facts relating to delay,

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 80P

All 5,069 judgments and leading authorities on Section 80P →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →