NO.4091 MALLASAMUDRAM PACCS LTD.,NAMAKKAL vs. ITO, WARD-,, NAMAKKAL

Assessment Years: 2014-15 No.4091 Mallasamudram Primary Income Tax Officer, Agricultural Coop Credit Society Ltd, Ward-1, Mallasamudram. P.O. T.Gode.T.K., Namakkal. Namakkal D.T, Tamil Nadu- 637 503, [PAN: AABAN1134E] (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) अपीलार्थी की ओर से/ Assessee by : Shri T.S.Lakshmi Venkataraman, FCA, प्रत्यर्थी की ओर से /Revenue by : Ms.Anitha, Addl.CIT सुनवाई की तारीख/Date of Hearing : 17.06.2025 घोषणा की तारीख /Date of Pronouncement : 19.06.2025 आदेश / O R D E R PER AMITABH SHUKLA, A.M :

This appeal is filed by the assessee against the order bearing DIN & Order No.ITBA / NFAC / S / 250 / 2024-25 / 1072363713(1) dated 21.01.2025 of the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax [herein after “CIT(A), National Faceless Appeal Center[NFAC], Delhi, for the assessment year 2014-15. The reference to the word “Act” in this order hereinafter shall mean the Income Tax Act, 1961 as amended from time to time.

2.0 It has been noted that there is a delay of 17 days in the case, in filing of this appeal before the tribunal. In its affidavit the assesse has pleaded that the assesse is a society with limited staff and had consumed more time than required to seek appropriate professional guidance in the filing of the appeal. There was also a change in the management of the society. All these activities contributed to the delay which was neither willful nor wanton. The assesse submitted that there will not be case of any non-compliance now. We have considered the justification put forth by the assesse and we are satisfied with their adequacy. We are also conscious of the fact that no litigant gains by intentionally delaying its own matters. The Ld. DR did not pose any serious objections to the delay however proposed that cost be imposed upon the assessee for wasting the precious time of the courts. Accordingly, we hereby condone the delay and proceed to adjudicate this appeal.

3.0 At the outset the Ld. Counsel for the assesse informed that both the Ld.AO and the Ld. First Appellate Authority has passed an ex-parte order thereby confirming the assessment order u/s 144B r.w.s 147 dated 14.03.2022. It was submitted that the Ld. First Appellate Authority dismissed its appeal without condoning the delay in filing of appeal before him. It was pleaded that the non-compliance of the assesse was attributable to change of management, Covid-19 epidemic and lack of Page - 2 - of 4 adequate staff with the society. The Ld. Counsel for the assesse pleaded for setting aside the case to Ld.CIT(A) and personally assured that full compliance would now be made to the statutory notices of the Ld. CIT(A). 4.0 Per contra, the Ld.DR relied upon the order of lower authorities and submitted that the assessee is a willful defaulter. 5.0 We have heard rival submissions in the light of material available on records. It is an admitted fact from the records that the assessee has not complied with the statutory notices of the lower authorities leading to addition of Rs.24,95,018/- by denial of deduction u/s 80P of the Act. The Ld. Counsel for the assesse has given personal assurance of compliance now. We are conscious that no litigant benefits by non-prosecution of its case. We find sufficient force in the pleadings of the assesse as to why it could not file its appeal in time before the Ld.CIT(A). We have also noted that apart from merely harping on the issue of delayed filing by the assesse the Ld. CIT(A) has not touched upon merits of the case. 6.0 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 assesse and to pass a speaking order. We also direct the Ld. CIT(A) to condone the delay in filing of appeal before him and readjudicate. He will be at liberty to call for any remand report from the Ld. AO if warranted by the facts of the case. The Page - 3 - of 4 Ld. CIT(A). Any non-compliance from the assesse 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. This order is however subject to payment of cost of Rs.5,000/- by the assessee to the Tamil Nadu State Legal Services Authority at Hon’ble High Court of Madras within 30 days of the receipt of this order. Accordingly, the grounds of appeal raised by the assesse are allowed for statistical purposes. 7.0 In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced on 19th , June-2025 at Chennai. Sd/- Sd/- (मनु कुमार धिरर) (अधमताभ शुक्ला) (MANU KUMAR GIRI) (AMITABH SHUKLA) न्याधयक सदस्य / Judicial Member लेखा सदस्य /Accountant Member चेन्नई/Chennai, धदनांक/Dated: 19th , June-2025. KB/- आदेश की प्रतितिति अग्रेतिि/Copy to: 1. अिीिार्थी/Appellant 2. प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent 3. आयकर आयुक्त/CIT - 4. तिभागीय प्रतितिति/DR 5. गार्ड फाईि/GF

Page - 4 - of 4