AA 293 PANAHALLI PRIMARY AGRICULTURAL COOPERATIVE CREDIT SOCIETY LIMITED,ERODE vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 2(1), ERODE

The ld. DR Ms. Gouthami Manivasagam, JCIT supported the order passed by the ld. CIT(A).

We have heard both the parties and perused the material available on record. On perusal of Col. 15 of Form 35, we note that the assessee explained reasons for the delay in filing the appeal. In para 5 of the impugned order, the ld. CIT(A) has reproduced the reasons for the delay stated by the assessee, but, however, rejected the submissions of the assessee and dismissed the appeal for the reason that the assessee filed return of income for AY 2022-23 & 2023-24 on 01.11.2022 and 29.10.2023 (i.e., after passing the assessment order) wherein, the assessee has mentioned same e-mail ID for correspondence. The above observations of the ld. CIT(A) is not correct on the ground that in Form 35 under “Personal Information”, the assessee has stated e-mail address taxcooperativeerode@gmail.com, to which no hearing notice send to the assessee. Considering the submissions of the ld. AR, the reasons stated by the assessee for the delay in filing the appeal, are found to be reasonable cause. Accordingly, we direct the ld. CIT(A) to condone the delay and adjudicate the issues on merits after considering the submissions/ evidences as may be furnished by the assessee subject to the condition of payment of ₹.10,000/- in favour of the State Legal Aid Authority, Hon’ble Madras High Court within 30 days from the date of receipt of this order, the ld. CIT(A) shall satisfy the payment of cost and pass order in accordance with law. Thus, the grounds raised by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes. ITA No. 2021/Chny/2025

Against the order passed under section 270A of the Act dated 16.03.2023, the assessee preferred an appeal before the ld. CIT(A) with a delay of 654 days. We find the issue raised in this appeal is similar based on same identical facts with that of appeal in , wherein, we have remanded the matter to the file of the ld. CIT(A) to condone the delay and decide the issue on merits after imposing cost on the assessee of ₹.10,000/- payable in favour of the State Legal Aid Authority, Hon’ble Madras High Court within 30 days from the date of receipt of this order and to pass order in accordance with law. Therefore, the view taken by us in the said appeal in the aforementioned paragraphs are equally applicable to the facts and circumstances of the present appeal and accordingly, direct the ld. CIT(A) to condone the delay and adjudicate the issues on merits after considering the submissions/ evidences as may be furnished by the assessee subject to the condition of payment of ₹.10,000/- in favour of the State Legal Aid Authority, Hon’ble Madras High Court within 30 days from the date of receipt of this order, the ld. CIT(A) shall satisfy the payment of cost and to pass order in accordance with law. Thus, the grounds raised by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes.

The Assessing Officer levied penalty of ₹.30,000/- under section 272(1)(d) of the Act dated 15.02.2023 for the reason of non-compliance to the notice under section 143(2) of the Act issued on 29.06.2021 and served to the assessee through system as well as notices under section 142(1) of the Act dated 28.10.2021, 21.12.2021 and 24.01.2022 and served by verification unit through speed post. The ld. CIT(A) dismissed the appeal of the assessee by rejecting the prayer of condonation of delay.

Heard both the parties and perused the material available on record. We have also perused relevant provisions of section 272A(1) of the Act and reproduced the same for ready reference: 272A(1) If any person,- (a) being legally bound to state the truth of any matter touching the subject of his assessment, refuses to answer any question put to him by an income-tax authority in the exercise of its powers under this Act; or (b) refuses to sign any statement made by him in the course of any proceedings under this Act, which an income-tax authority may legally require him to sign; or (c) to whom a summons is issued under sub-section (1) of section 131 either to attend to give evidence or produce books of account or other documents at a certain place and time omits to attend or produce books of account or documents at the place or time; or (d) fails to comply with a notice under sub-section (1) of section 142 or sub-section (2) of section 143 or fails to comply with a direction issued under sub-section (2A) of section 142 he shall pay, by way of penalty, [a sum of ten thousand rupees] for each such default or failure.

In this case, we note that the Assessing Officer issued notice under section 143(2) of the Act to the assessee on 29.06.2021 for furnishing details. Similarly, the Assessing Officer issued notice under section 142(1) of the Act to the assessee on 28.10.2021, 21.12.2021 & 24.01.2022 requiring the assessee to furnish the details, but, however, we note that the assessee has not complied with the above notices issued by the Assessing Officer. In view of the provisions of section 272A(1)(d) of the Act, as reproduced herein above, the Assessing Officer levied penalty of ₹.30,000/-. We note that as a direct consequence of the assessee’s failure to comply with statutory notices, the Assessing Officer levied penalty under section 272A(1)(d) of the Act. The ld. CIT(A) dismissed the appeal of the assessee by rejecting the prayer of condonation of delay.

On merits, we note that the assessee’s failure to comply with statutory notices collectively indicate clear non-compliance and accordingly, the penalty levied under section 272A(1)(d) of the Act stands sustained and dismiss the grounds raised by the assessee.

In the result, the appeals filed in & 2021/Chny/2025 are allowed for statistical purposes and the appeal in is dismissed.