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

K864 Murali Chennampatti Income Tax Officer, Primary Agricultural Co-op Vs. Ward-2(1), Credit Society, Erode. Murali, Murali Post, Anthiyur Thaluk, Erode Dist, Tamil Nadu-638504 [PAN: AABAK3671M] (अपीलधर्थी/Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) अपीलधर्थी की ओर से/ Assessee by : Ms.Vijayalakshmi, C.A, प्रत्यर्थी की ओर से /Revenue by : Shri Eswaran, JCIT : 22.01.2025 सुिवधई की तधरीख/Date of Hearing घोर्णध की तधरीख /Date of : 24.01.2025 Pronouncement आदेश / O R D E R PER AMITABH SHUKLA, A.M : This appeal is filed against the order bearing DIN & Order No.ITBA/NFAC/S/250/2024-25/1069277212(1) dated 30.09.2024 of the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax [herein after “CIT(A), National Faceless Appeal Center[NFAC], Delhi, for the assessment years 2020-21. Page - 1 - of 4 Through the aforesaid appeal the assesse has challenged order u/s 250 dated 30.09.2024 passed by NFAC, Delhi. 2.0 At the outset the Ld. Counsel for the assesse informed that the Ld. First Appellate Authority has passed an ex-parte order thereby confirming the penalty order u/s 272A(1)(d) dated 14.03.2023 and that the appeal was dismissed for being filed late without any justified grounds. It was pleaded that the assesse had committed delay of about 139 days and for which it had justified grounds. It was stated that the assessee is primary agricultural cooperative credit society and that the Tamil Nadu Cooperative Audit Department, Erode is its statutory auditor. The delay was caused in filing of appeal as the secretary was held up in completion of its statutory audit which in turn caused the delay before the Ld. CIT(A). The Ld. Counsel submitted the matter may be restored to Ld. CIT(A) for readjudication on its merits and that it shall make full compliance to the notices of Ld. CIT(A). The Ld. DR placed reliance upon the authorities below. 3.0 We have heard the rival submissions in the light of material available on records. It is trite law 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. First Page - 2 - of 4 Appellate Authority. 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. 4.0 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 of 341 days in filing of appeal in this case. He will be at liberty to call for any remand report from the Ld. AO if warranted by the facts of the case. The assesse shall be bound to comply to all the notices and details called by the 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. Accordingly, the grounds of appeal raised by the assesse are allowed for statistical purposes.