T1461 KOOTHANALLUR PACB LTD.,THIRUVARUR vs. ITO, WARD-1, THIRUVARUR

The ld. AR Ms. T.V. Paarkavi, Advocate for Shri J. Ashok, Advocate submits that the ld. CIT(A) ought to have condoned the short delay of 169 days in filing the appeal, where the assessee had given sufficient reasons for the delay that the assessee’s accountant was handing the accounts issues and due to his sickness, the assessee was not in a position to immediately respond to the assessment order passed by the Assessing Officer. She argued that the ld. CIT(A) dismissed the appeal on technicalities without adjudicating the case on merits and argued vehemently that the ld. CIT(A) violated the principles of natural justice. The ld. AR prayed that the delay in filing the appeal before the ld. CIT(A) may be condoned and suitable directions may be passed for adjudication of the issues on merits.

The ld. AR drew our attention to the copy of the petition for condonation of delay in filing return of income under section 119(2)(b) of the Act filed before the ld. CCIT, Madurai dated 25.03.2024 and prayed

The ld. DR Shri C. Sivakumar, Addl. CIT relied on the order passed by the ld. CIT(A).

Heard both the parties and perused the material available on record. The assessee is a cooperative society registered under the Tamil Nadu Co-operative Societies Act, 1983, which is part of the Tamil Nadu State Government. We note that admittedly, the assessee filed an appeal before the ld. CIT(A) with a delay of 169 days and prayed for condoning the delay, which was summarily rejected by the ld. CIT(A) and dismissed the appeal filed by the assessee. We note that the grounds taken by the assessee for condonation of delay has been reproduced at page 2 of the impugned order. We note that the assessee has stated that the Accountant of the assessee, who was handling the accounts, was not in a position to respond on time due to his sickness and it was only when the office bearers of the assessee received notices that they had appointed another consultant to deal with the issues. Thus, considering facts and circumstances of the case and also in the interest of natural justice, we direct the ld. CIT(A) to condone the delay and adjudicate the issues on

We note that the assessee has not filed its return of income under section 139 of the Act. The assessee has placed copy of the petition for condonation of delay in filing return preferred before the ld. CCIT, Madurai dated 25.03.2024 under section 119(2)(b) of the Act, which is still pending for decision. We note that in this case, the delay in filing the return of income has been attributed to the delay in finalization of the statutory audit to be conducted by the internal audit of Government of Tamil Nadu, the assessee could not file the return of income within the time specified under the Act. Since the condonation petition has been filed by the assessee before the competent authority under section 119(2)(b) of the Act, we set aside the impugned order and direct the ld. CIT(A) to pass order after the decision has been taken by the competent authority i.e., the CCIT, Madurai on the condonation petition filed by the assessee for the delay in filing of return of income. Thus, the grounds raised by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes.

The Stay Application filed by the assessee in S.A. No. 73/Chny/2025, was also heard along with the main appeal. Since we have adjudicated the main appeal and remanded the matter to the file

In the result, the stay application filed by the assessee is dismissed and the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced on 22nd August, 2025 at Chennai.