Loading judgment…
Facts
The appellant, a primary agricultural cooperative credit society, did not file a regular return for AY 2015-16. The AO issued a notice u/s 148, and the appellant filed a return with nil income, claiming exemption u/s 80P. The assessment was completed u/s 147 r.w.s 144, adding estimated profits from turnover difference, interest income, and unexplained cash deposits.
Held
The tribunal held that the CIT(A) erred in dismissing the appeal solely on the grounds of delay. The limitation period commences from the communication of the assessment order, not the date of the order itself, and the appellant claimed to have received the order later. Therefore, the matter was remitted back for de novo disposal.
Key Issues
Whether the CIT(A) was justified in dismissing the appeal in limine on the grounds of delay, without considering the date of receipt of the assessment order.
Sections Cited
147, 148, 144, 144B, 80P, 143(3)
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, ‘B’ BENCH: CHENNAI
Before: HON’BLE SHRI GEORGE GEORGE K & HON’BLE SHRI INTURI RAMA RAO
Assessee by : Mr.G.Reddi Prakash, C.A. Revenue by : Ms.R.Anitha, Addl.CIT Date of Hearing : 19.12.2025 Date of Pronouncement : 30.12.2025 O R D E R PER INTURI RAMA RAO, A.M :
This appeal filed by the assessee – R 1177 Thirumalapadi Primary Agricultural Cooperative Credit Society Ltd against the order of the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax(Appeal), [‘CIT(A)’ in short], NFAC, Delhi, dated 29.10.2025 for AY-2015-16.
2.0 The appellant is a cooperative society incorporated under the provisions of the Tamil Nadu cooperative society Act, 1983. It is classified as a primary agricultural cooperative credit society. No regular return of income for the AY-2015-16 filed by the appellant. The AO formed an & SA-126/Chny/2025 & opinion that income got escaped assessment from tax, accordingly, a notice u/s 148 was issued on 07.04.2024. In response to the notice u/s 148, the appellant had filed return of income disclosing nil income after claiming exemption under the provisions of section 80P of Income Tax Act. Against the said return of income, the assessment was completed by NAFC (herein after called Assessing Authority) u/s. 147 r.w.s 144 r.w.s.144B of the Income Tax Act 1961 on 20.02.2024 for the Assessment Year 2015-16 at a total income of Rs.2,97,55,388. While doing so, the AO made addition by estimating a profit on the difference of turnover shown in profit and loss account and the amount of credits in the bank account and estimated the profit on differential amount at 10%, accordingly the addition of Rs.86,15,848/- was made treating the credits in the bank account as business turnover of the appellant. The assessing officer also made addition of interest income of Rs. 1,12,09,540/-. The assessing authority also made addition of cash deposit in the bank account of Rs.99,30,000/- as unexplained money of the appellant for the failure of the appellant to explain the source of cash deposit.
3.0 Being aggrieved, an appeal was filed before the CIT(A), who vide the impugned order dismissed the appeal on the grounds of delay by holding that the appellant failed to explain the delay of 65 days in filing appeal before him.
Page - 2 - of 4 & SA-126/Chny/2025 & 4.0 Being aggrieved, the appellant is in appeal before us in the present appeal.
5.0 The learned AR submits that the NFAC grossly erred in dismissing the appeal by holding that appeal is barred by limitation, in as much as, there was no delay in filing before the CIT(A). On the other hand, the Sr.DR seriously objected for remanding the matter back to the CIT(A) to decide the issues in appeal on merits.
6.0 We heard the rival submissions and perused the material on record. The sole issue that arises for our consideration is whether the CIT(A) was justified in dismissing the appeal in limine on the grounds of delay. On perusal of the impugned order passed by the NFAC, it would be clear that the NFAC had reckoned the date of assessment order for the purpose of computing the period of limitation for filing the appeal. The appellant took specific plea that the assessment order was received by him only on 09.05.2024, and the appeal was filed on 27.05.2024. Thus, according to the appellant, there was no delay in filing the appeal before the CIT(A). It is trite law that the limitation period of 30 days for filing the appeal commences from the date of communication of the assessment order not date of order itself. In any event, when the appellant specifically mentioned that date of service of the assessment order was on 09.05.2024, in the absence of any evidence to the contrary, without giving an opportunity to Page - 3 - of 4 & SA-126/Chny/2025 & cure the defect, the CIT(A) ought not to have dismissed the appeal in limine on the grounds of delay. Therefore, we reverse the order passed by the NFAC and remit the matter back to the file of the NFAC for de novo disposal of appeal in accordance with law after affording an opportunity of being heard to the appellant.
7.0 In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes.
8.0 Since the appeal was disposed of by this tribunal, the stay petition No.126 / Chny / 2025 for AY – 2015-16 filed by the appellant becomes in fructuous and accordingly it is dismissed. Order pronounced on 30th , December-2025 at Chennai.