TERRAGREEN AGRITECH VENTURES PRIVATE LIMITED,DINDIGUL vs. ITO, CORPORATE WARD 3(1) CHE, CHENNAI

सुनवाई की तारीख/Date of Hearing : 07.10.2025 घोषणा की तारीख /Date of Pronouncement : 09.10.2025 आदेश / O R D E R PER AMITABH SHUKLA, A.M :

The below mentioned appeals have been filed by the appellant Revenue for AY-2018-19 to 2020-21 contesting the order of Ld. First Appellate Authority indicated Column-E, herein below:-

S. Appeal AYs Appellant CIT(A) Order Details Respondent No. Nos. A B C D E F ITA DIN & Order No.ITBA / APL / S Terragreen No. Agritech Ventures / 250 / 2025-26 / Income Tax 2140 / Chny 1 2018-19 Private Limited, 1076251115(1) dated Officer, / 2025 No.8/6, 1st Floor, 16.05.2025 Corporate Padma Complex, Gopalasamudram Ward-3(1), & Order No.ITBA / APL / S West Bank Road, Chennai. 2 2019-20 / 250 / 2025-26 / Dindigul, Tamil 2141 / Chny Nadu-603 103. 1076250976(1) dated

/ 2025 16.05.2025 [PAN: AAFCT8628K] & Order No.ITBA / APL / S / 250 / 2025-26 / 2142 / Chny 3 2020-21 1076250836(1) dated / 2025 16.05.2025 2.0 All the above appeals of the assessee are centering around a common issue and hence were heard together and are being adjudicated by this common order. The facts of all the cases have been stated to be identical in all the appeals. For the purposes of this common order, facts and figures for AY-2018-19 qua shall be considered as lead year. The decision taken in / Chny / 2025 shall apply mutatis mutandis in / Chny / 2025. 3.0 At the outset the Ld. Counsel for the assessee informed that the Ld. First Appellate Authority has passed an ex-parte order thereby confirming the assessment order u/s 143(1) dated 16.10.2019 and that the appeal was dismissed for having been filed late without any justified grounds. It was pleaded that the assessee had committed delay of 1938 days and for which it had justified grounds. It was stated that the appellant company is engaged in the cultivation of bio-fertilizers and agricultural project management. The company had entrusted its work for preparation and filing of Income Tax Returns and attending to tax matters to one Mr.S.Manimaran. Latter it was discovered that the said Mr.S.Manimaran was an imposter without any professional qualification and was cheating the company through engagement in fraudulent

Page - 2 - of 6 activities. The assessee had to file police case against the said person who was taken into judicial custody. Part delay was attributable to Covid- 19 which had brought everything to a standstill. It was only upon receipt of recovery notice sometime in January-2025 qua order u/s 143(1) dated 16.10.2019 that the assessee learnt of the of the order u/s 143(1) supra and proceeded to file appeal before Ld.CIT(A) which was dismissed in limine. The Ld. Counsel submitted the matter may be restored to Ld. CIT(A) for readjudication on its merits after condoning the delay. It was personally assured by the Ld.Counsel that it shall make full compliance to the notices of Ld. CIT(A). In support of its contentions, the Ld. Counsel filed a paper book. 4.0 Per contra, the Ld.DR relied upon the order of lower authorities. 5.0 We have heard rival submissions in the light of material available on records. Before us the assessee has filed an affidavit vividly explaining the facts and circumstances that have contributed in delayed filing of appeal before the Ld.CIT(A). We are convinced that the assessee had justified grounds for filing delayed appeal before the Ld.First Appellate Authority. We are also conscious of the fact that no litigant gains by not pursuing its matter. We have also noted that the issue at hand is an intimation u/s 143(1) whereby demand of Rs.10,59,390/- has been raised by making adjustments. The veracity

Page - 3 - of 6 of the adjustments deserves to be examined particularly in light of claim of assessee for being eligible for exemption u/s 10 of the Act. We are therefore of the view that ends of justice would be met if the case is set aside to the file of the Ld. CIT(A) for readjudication after giving opportunities of being heard to the assessee and to pass a speaking order, in accordance with law. We also direct the Ld. CIT(A) to condone the delay occurred in filing of appeals in these cases. The assessee shall be bound to comply to all the notices and details called by the Ld. CIT(A). Any non-compliance from the assessee side shall be adversely viewed. Accordingly, we set aside the order of the Ld. First Appellate Authority and direct him to readjudicate the matter de novo, in accordance with law. Accordingly, all the grounds of appeal raised by the assessee in are allowed for statistical purposes. 6.0 In the result, the appeal of the assessee vide / Chny / 2025 for AY-2018-19 stands allowed for statistical purposes. 7.0 As stated above the rival parties have conceded that the facts of the case for all the years are identical. Consequently, the decision taken herein above in AY-2018-19 shall apply mutatis mutandis in / Chny / 2025 for AY-2019-20 and ITA No. 2142 / Chny / 2025 for AY-2020-21 respectively. Accordingly, the Page - 4 - of 6 appeals of the assessee for 2142 supra also stands allowed for statistical purposes 8.0 In the result, the appeals of the assessee are decided as under:-

Allowed for statistical purposes 2018-19 / Chny / 2025 Allowed for statistical purposes 2019-20 / Chny / 2025 Allowed for statistical purposes 2020-21

Order pronounced on 9th , October-2025 at Chennai.

Sd/- Sd/- (एबी टी. वर्की) (अधमताभ शुक्ला) (ABY T VARKEY) (AMITABH SHUKLA) न्याधयक सदस्य / Judicial Member लेखा सदस्य /Accountant Member चेन्नई/Chennai, धदनांक/Dated: 9th , October+-2025. KB/- आदेश की प्रतितिति अग्रेतिि/Copy to: 1. अिीिार्थी/Appellant 2. प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent 3. आयकर आयुक्त/CIT - Chennai/Coimbatore/Madurai/Salem. 4. तिभागीय प्रतितिति/DR 5. गार्ड फाईि/GF

Page - 5 - of 6

Page - 6 - of 6