Loading judgment…
Facts
The assessee, a Primary Agricultural Co-op Credit Society, filed appeals against orders of the Ld.CIT(A). There were significant delays in filing these appeals due to issues with their Chartered Accountant, who failed to appear before the Ld.CIT(A) due to technical glitches, leading to ex-parte orders.
Held
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeals, subject to payment of costs, and set aside the ex-parte orders passed by the Ld.CIT(A). The matters were remitted back to the Ld.CIT(A) for adjudication on merits after hearing the assessee.
Key Issues
Whether the delay in filing appeals before the Tribunal due to the negligence of the authorized representative and technical glitches can be condoned, and if ex-parte orders passed without hearing the assessee are valid.
Sections Cited
250(6)
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, ‘A’ BENCH: CHENNAI
Before: SHRI ABY T. VARKEY & SHRI AMITABH SHUKLA
आदेश / O R D E R PER ABY T. VARKEY, JM: These are appeals preferred by the assessee Primary Agricultural Co-op Credit Society (PACCS) against the order of the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)/NFAC, (hereinafter referred to as ‘Ld.CIT(A)‘), Delhi, dated 28.12.2023 for the Assessment Year (hereinafter referred to as ‘AY‘) 2017-18 & order dated 03.09.2024 for AY & 2181/Chny/2025 SA Nos.87 & 88/Chny/2025 (AYs 2017-18 & 2018-19) K 1434 Senjerimalaiyadipalayam Primary – Agricultural Co-op. Credit Society :: 2 ::
2018-19. [SA Nos.87 & 88/Chny/2025 are the Stay Applications filed by the assessee against enforcement of the demand raised by the AO pursuant to the quantum appeal being decided against it for AYs 2018-19 & 2017-18].
At the outset, it is noted that there is a delay of ‘523’ days & ‘248’ days in filing of these appeals for AYs 2017-18 & 2018-19 respectively.
The Secretary of the PACCS, R. Kalaivani has filed an application of condonation of delay along with the affidavit. After going through the contents of the application for condoning the delay, submissions made by the Ld.AR for the assessee, it is discerned that assessee society has entrusted the matter to a Chartered Accountant who filed the appeals before the First Appellate Authority within time on 24.01.2020 & 07.04.2021 respectively, but for the reasons best known to him, he didn’t appear before the First Appellate Authority; and only when the demand- notice was issued against the assessee [pursuant to the Ld.CIT(A) dismissing the quantum appeals by passing the impugned orders], the assessee on enquiry came to know about the impugned action of the Ld.CIT(A) that he has passed ex parte orders confirming the action of the AO. On enquiry from the Chartered Accountant for not appearing before the First Appellate Authority, he replied that due to certain glitches in the portals/system, he was not aware of the proceedings before the appellate & 2181/Chny/2025 SA Nos.87 & 88/Chny/2025 (AYs 2017-18 & 2018-19) K 1434 Senjerimalaiyadipalayam Primary – Agricultural Co-op. Credit Society authority, because of which, he was not able to represent the assessee’s case which led to the dismissal of the appeals ex parte qua assessee.
From the averments made, it is discerned that the assessee society was in the dark about the passing of the impugned orders in AYs 2017-18 & 2018-19 and they came to know about it only on 25th July, 2025, and then it promptly entrusted the case to the present Ld.AR who immediately took steps to file the appeals before this Tribunal on 05.08.2025.
Therefore, prayed for condonation of delay in filing of both the appeals.
Per contra, the Ld.DR doesn’t want us to condone the delay and admit the appeals. She wants us to confirm the action of the Ld.CIT(A) since the assessee failed to respond to the notices issued by the Ld.CIT(A).
Heard both the parties on the application filed for condonation of delay. The Ld.AR has brought to our notice that the assessee society had entrusted the cases promptly to the Chartered Accountant who had filed the appeals against the assessment orders dated 26.12.2019 (for AY 2017-18) & 23.02.2021 for AY 2018-19 before the First Appellate Authority on 24.01.2020 & 07.04.2021 respectively. Immediately after filing the appeals for AYs 2017-18 & 2018-19, Covid-19 pandemic had spread in the country. Recently only when the demand was raised, the & 2181/Chny/2025 SA Nos.87 & 88/Chny/2025 (AYs 2017-18 & 2018-19) K 1434 Senjerimalaiyadipalayam Primary – Agricultural Co-op. Credit Society assessee came to know that the First Appellate Authority had dismissed their appeal for both the assessment years. On enquiry from the AR/Chartered-Accountant, he submitted that due to glitches in the internet/server, he was not aware of the appellate proceedings going on against the assessee which prompted the Ld.CIT(A) to dismiss the appeals ex parte qua assessee. Since the assessee was in the dark about the ex parte impugned orders passed on 28.12.2023 & 03.09.2024 and came to know only about it in the last week of July, 2025, and then, assessee promptly entrusted the matter to the Ld.AR, Karuanantham, advocate who promptly filed the same in the first week of August, 2025.
According to the Ld.AR, the inaction of the assessee in filing the appeal within the limitation period can’t be held to be deliberate. Considering the aforesaid facts, he prayed for condoning the delay.
From the facts discussed supra, it is noted that the assessee is a Primary Agricultural Co-op Credit Society, and it can’t be faulted for delay in filing of appeals. It is noted that the assessee promptly filed the appeals before the Ld.CIT(A) and the omission to file the appeals before this Tribunal has been attributed to the omission on the part of the Chartered Accountant (who had been entrusted the appeal papers for filing before the First Appellate Authority) and in turn he has attributed [his omission to attend/respond to the notice of the Ld.CIT(A)] due to & 2181/Chny/2025 SA Nos.87 & 88/Chny/2025 (AYs 2017-18 & 2018-19) K 1434 Senjerimalaiyadipalayam Primary – Agricultural Co-op. Credit Society technical glitches in the system. Be that as it may. Considering the overall facts and circumstances, we are of the view that assessee can’t be faulted for the delay in filing of appeals, since assessee was not aware of passing of the impugned orders. Therefore, we deem it fit to grant one more opportunity to the assessee subject to levy cost of ₹15,000/- for condoning the delay for AY 2018-19 and ₹10,000/- for condoning the delay for AY 2017-18, which will be deposited to the State Legal Aid Authority, Hon’ble Madras High Court, and produce necessary proof of depositing of the same before the Ld.CIT(A) and then, the Ld.CIT(A) to verify it and then adjudicate the grounds of appeal in accordance to law.
Having condoned the delay (subject to payment of cost), that the Ld.CIT(A) has passed the ex parte orders against the assessee for both years, since the assessee didn’t respond to his notices issued for hearing on three (3) occasions (for AY 2017-18) and finding no reply from the assessee, has dismissed the appeal. Likewise for AY 2018-19, the Ld.CIT(A) is noted to have issued notices on five (5) occasions and finding no response from the assessee has dismissed the appeal of the assessee.
Thus, it is noted that both the impugned orders are ex parte orders without hearing the assessee. Since there is violation of natural justice, we set aside the impugned ex parte orders of the Ld.CIT(A) and remit the & 2181/Chny/2025 SA Nos.87 & 88/Chny/2025 (AYs 2017-18 & 2018-19) K 1434 Senjerimalaiyadipalayam Primary – Agricultural Co-op. Credit Society appeals back to the file of the Ld.CIT(A) with a direction to adjudicate the grounds of appeals raised by the assessee on merits after hearing the assessee. The Ld.AR has undertaken to file all the relevant documents before the Ld.CIT(A), we direct him to do so and the Ld.CIT(A) to pass order in accordance to law as per sub-section (6) of Section 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961.
6. Since we have remitted the appeals back to the file of the Ld.CIT(A), Stay Petitions filed by the assessee against the demand raised pursuant to it are infructuous and so, dismissed.
In the result, appeals filed by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes and Stay Petitions filed by the assessee are dismissed as infructuous.
Order pronounced on the 24th day of October, 2025, in Chennai.