K864 MURALI CHENNAMPATTI PRIMARY AGRICULTURE CO-OP CREDIT SOCIETY,ERODE vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 2(1) ERODE, ERODE

assessee for AY-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 DIN & Order No.ITBA / K864 Murali Chennampatti Primary NFAC / S / 250 / 2024-25 / Chny / 1 2020-21 Agriculture Co-Op The Income / 1072191114(1) dated 2025 Credit Society, Tax Officer, 15.01.2025. Murali, Murali Post, Ward-2(1), Anthiyur Taluk, DIN & Order No.ITBA / Erode Dist, Erode NFAC / S / 250 / 2024-25 Tamil Nadu-638504. 2 2020-21 / Chny / / 1072192829(1) dated [PAN: AABCE5890L] 2025 15.01.2025.

As the two appeals are centering around a common issue of non- condonation of delay by the Ld.CIT(A) and hence for the purposes of convenience were heard together and are being adjudicated by this common order together. 2.0 At the outset, the Ld.Counsel for the assessee submitted that both & 820 are regarding dismissal of its appeal on account of non-condonation of delay by the Ld.CIT(A). Thus in Ld.AO had denied the action u/s 80P and in ITA Nos.820 penalty u/s 270A was imposed. The Ld. Counsel accordingly requested that its cases may be remitted back to the Ld.CIT(A) for fresh adjudication. It was submitted that the assessee was having reasonable grounds for the impugned delay. 3.0 Per contra, the Ld.DR argued in favour of the lower authorities. 4.0 We have heard rival submissions in the light of material available on records. Before the Ld.First Appellate Authority, the assessee had submitted that the impugned delay had occurred because the assessee does not has a regular accountant and the secretary of the society was basically trained in cooperative society operations. At the relevant time, appellate society was pre-occupied its statutory audit. Consequently delay had occurred. The decision of Ld.CIT(A) to not condone the delay has been found to be excessive. We have noted that no litigant benefits by delaying its matters. We have also noted that apart from merely Page - 2 - of 3 harping on the issue of insufficient grounds for the impugned delay, the Ld.First Appellate Authority has not touched upon the merits of the case. We are therefore of the considered view that in the interest of justice, it would be appropriate to remit back the matter to Ld.CIT(A) for fresh adjudication. Accordingly, we set aside the order of lower authorities and direct the Ld.CIT(A) to readjudicate the matter after giving due opportunity of being heard and by passing a speaking order in accordance with the law. It shall be bounden upon the assessee to comply with all the statutory notices issued by the Ld.CIT(A). Any non- compliance would be adversely viewed. Accordingly, all the grounds of appeal raised by the assessee vide & 820 are therefore allowed for statistical purposes. 5.0 In the result, the appeals of the assessee vide ITA Nos.819 & 820 are allowed for statistical purposes Order pronounced on 13th , June-2025 at Chennai. Sd/- Sd/- (यस यस धवश्वनेत्र रधव) (अधमताभ शुक्ला) (SS VISWANETHRA RAVI) (AMITABH SHUKLA) न्याधयक सदस्य / Judicial Member लेखा सदस्य /Accountant Member चेन्नई/Chennai, धदनांक/Dated: 13th , June-2025. KB/- आदेश की प्रतितिति अग्रेतिि/Copy to: 1. अिीिार्थी/Appellant 2. प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent 3. आयकर आयुक्त/CIT - Coimbatore 4. तिभागीय प्रतितिति/DR 5. गार्ड फाईि/GF

Page - 3 - of 3