GOUNDAMPALAYAM PRIMARY AGRICULTURAL CO-OPERATIVE CREDIT SOCIETY,TIRUPUR vs. ITO, WARD 2(2), TIRUPUR

K-1755 Goundampalayam Primary Income Tax Officer, Agricultural Cooperative Credit Ward-2(2), Society, Goundampalayam Tirupur Ganapathypalayam(PO), Veerapandi(VIA) Tirupur Tamil Nadu-641605. [PAN: AAALK1190P] (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) अपीलार्थी की ओर से/ Assessee by : Shri N.V.Narayanan, Advocate प्रत्यर्थी की ओर से /Revenue by : Ms.Anitha, Addl.CIT सुिवाई की तारीख/Date of Hearing : 21.01.2025 घोर्णा की तारीख /Date of Pronouncement : 07.02.2025 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/250/2024-25/1068729587(1) dated 17.09.2024 of the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax [herein after “CIT(A), National Faceless Appeal Center[NFAC], Delhi, for the assessment years 2017-18. Through the aforesaid appeal the assesse has challenged order u/s 250 dated 17.09.2024 passed by NFAC, Delhi.

Page - 1 - of 4 2.0 The Ld. Counsel for the assessee that the principal controversy seminal to the case is that the Ld. CIT(A) has dismissed its appeal without condoning the delay in filing of the impugned appeal. Thus it was submitted that a decision on merits qua claim of deduction u/s 80P has not been given. It was accordingly requested that the case may be set aside to the file of the Ld. CIT(A) for re-adjudicating the appeal.

3.0 The Ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted that actually there has been no delay in its case in the filing of the appeal and that the presumption of delay arrived by the Ld. CIT(A) was based upon misunderstanding of the facts of the case. The Ld. Counsel of the assessee drew our attention to the decision of the Hon’ble Madras High Court dated 31.01.2020, where assessee was a party in WP No.1133 of 2020. It was submitted that the Hon’ble Madras High Court had directed in para 32 of its order that the assessee is entitled to file an appeal before the Ld.CIT(A) “..within a period of three (3 ) weeks from today..”. The Ld. Counsel argued that the courts order was pronounced on 31.01.2020 and that the period of 21 days as per section 9 of the general clauses act 1897 completed on 21.02.2020. It was accordingly prayed that there was no mistake on part of the assessee and the assumption of delay in appeal filing made by the Ld. CIT(A) in page 5 of Page - 2 - of 4 4.0 We have heard rival submissions in the light of material available on records. We have taken noted the order of the Hon’ble Jurisdictional High Court which provided assessee three weeks of time from date of its order to file an appeal before the Ld.CIT(A). We have also noted the provisions of section 9 of the general clauses act 1897 which provide that for the purposes of calculation of limitation period the first in a series of dates is to be excluded. The Ld.CIT(A) has not considered these two critical aspects of the case. Accordingly, we direct the Ld.CIT(A) to re- adjudicate the appeal after considering the decision of the Hon’ble Jurisdictional High Court as well as provisions of section 9 of the general clauses act 1897 and decide as to whether there is any delay or not after giving due opportunity of being heard and by passing a speaking order. The assessee shall comply with all the statutory notices and any deviation shall be adversely viewed. Accordingly, all the grounds of appeal raised by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes.

Page - 3 - of 4 5.0 In the result, the appeal of assesse is allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced on 7th , February-2025 at Chennai. Sd/- Sd/- (यस यस नवश्विेत्र रनव) (श्री अनमताभ शुक्ला) (SS VISWANETHRA RAVI) (AMITABH SHUKLA) न्यानयक सदस्य / Judicial Member लेखा सदस्य /Accountant Member चेन्नई/Chennai, नदिांक/Dated: 7th , February-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 - 4 - of 4