THE CHHADAURI CO-OP. AGRICULTURAL SERVICE SOCIET LTD. Y,SHAEED BHAGT SINGH NAGAR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD, NAWANSHAHAR

ITA 882/ASR/2025Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar28 September 2026AY 2016-174 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal held that the First Appellate Authority's dismissal of the assessee's appeal in limine on the ground of delay was unjustified. The Tribunal noted that the assessee had explained the delay by stating that the assessment order was not received despite repeated requests. The Tribunal found that the First Appellate Authority should have undertaken a factual verification of this claim before dismissing the appeal. The Tribunal considered the delay of 220 days not to be inordinate. Consequently, the Tribunal set aside the order of the First Appellate Authority, directed the condonation of the delay, and remanded the appeal to the First Appellate Authority for adjudication on merits after providing the assessee a reasonable opportunity of being heard. The issue of the addition of Rs.2,21,605/- and the applicability of Section 80P(2)(d) were not decided on merits.

What were the facts?

The assessee, The Chhadauri Co-Op. Agricultural Service Society Ltd., is challenging an order dated 18-09-2025 passed by the National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi, for the assessment year 2016-17. The assessee is a cooperative society engaged in accepting deposits and providing credit facilities. The Assessing Officer reopened the assessment under Section 147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, after noticing cash deposits of Rs.59,61,974/- in the assessee's bank account, as the assessee had not filed its return of income. The assessee claimed its receipts were not taxable under Section 80P(2)(d). The Assessing Officer added Rs.2,21,605/- to the income. The assessee's appeal before the First Appellate Authority was dismissed in limine due to a delay of 220 days, with the authority finding the explanation for the delay unsatisfactory.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the First Appellate Authority was justified in dismissing the assessee's appeal in limine on the ground of delay, without condoning it, for the assessment year 2016-17, turning on the interpretation of procedural fairness and condonation of delay provisions under the Income Tax Act, 1961. Assessee's contentions: The assessee contended that the delay of 220 days was due to the non-receipt of the assessment order despite repeated requests made to the Assessing Officer. The assessee argued that the First Appellate Authority should have verified this claim before dismissing the appeal on grounds of delay. Revenue's contentions: The judgment records that the learned Departmental Representative was heard, but no specific contentions for the revenue are detailed regarding the delay or the merits of the case.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 147,Section 80P(2)(d)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, AMRITSAR BENCH, AMRITSAR

Before: SHRI SAKTIJIT DEY, HON’BLE & SHRI GIRISH AGRAWAL, HON’BLE

For Respondent: Shri Prashant Singh, Sr. DR (Virtual)

PER: SHRI SAKTIJIT DEY, V.P.:

This is an appeal by the assessee against order dated 18-09-2025 of National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi, for the assessment year 2016-17. 2. When the appeal was called out none appeared for the assessee despite notice. Hence, we proceed to dispose of the appeal ex-parte qua the assessee, after hearing Ld. DR and based on materials on record.

2 Asst. Year: 2016-17

3.

The limited grievance of the assessee in the present appeal is against the dismissal of the appeal in limine by the First Appellate Authority on the ground of delay.

4.

Briefly stated, the assessee is a Cooperati

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 147

All 49,210 judgments and leading authorities on Section 147 →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →