ADARSH GRAMIN SAHAKARI PATSANSTHA MARYADIT,KOLHAPUR vs. ITO WARD 1(1), KOLHAPUR

The captioned appeals at the instance of assessee pertaining to A.Y. 2018-19 are directed against the orders dated 22.01.2025 and 29.02.2025 of National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi passed u/s.250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short ‘the Act’) which inturn arising out of Assessment Order dated 16.03.2023 passed u/s.147 r.w.s.144 r.w.s.144B of the Act and Penalty Order dated 17.08.2023 passed u/s.271AAC(1) of the Act respectively.

Assessee sought adjournment and the same is rejected having taken note of the fact that in Ground No.1 raised by the assessee in both the appeals, the grievance of the assessee is that ld.CIT(A) has erred in passing the order u/s.250 of the Act without discussing merits of the case and therefore a prayer is made for restoring the matter to the file of ld.CIT(A) for consideration of appeal on merits.

On perusal of the impugned order with the assistance of ld. DR, we find that both the impugned orders are exparte and that ld.CIT(A) has dismissed the assessee’s appeals in limine on account of delay in filing of the appeals.

We have heard the ld.DR and perused the available material on record. We note that the assessee is a Cooperative society and did not file the return of income for A.Y. 2018-19 and subsequently information received by the Assessing Officer about cash deposits and re-assessment proceedings were carried out by issuance of valid notices but in absence of any appearance by the assessee, ld. AO passed Best Judgment assessment determining the income at ₹1,22,65,000.

Dissatisfied with the addition assessee preferred appeal before ld.CIT(A) but the same was delayed by 245 days. Ld.CIT(A) dismissed the assessee’s appeal in limine. We however taking note of the statement of facts filed before ld.CIT(A) as well as before this Tribunal observe that the assessee is a Cooperative Society which is normally run by some Members of the office bearers who keeps on changing and due to new rules of receiving notices on email, the delay has taken place.

We therefore in the larger interest of justice and in light of judgments Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Collector, Land Acquisition, Anantnag & Anr. Vs. Mst. Katiji & Ors. reported in (1987) 2 SCC 107 and in the case of Inder Singh Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh judgment dated 21.03.2025 (2025 INSC 382) condone the delay of 245 days before ld.CIT(A) and restore all the issues raised on merits to the file of ld.CIT(A). Needless to mention that ld.CIT(A) shall afford reasonable opportunity to the assessee in the set aside proceedings. Assessee is directed to update latest email id and contact detail on ITBA portal. Assessee is also directed to remain vigilant and not to take adjournment unless otherwise required for reasonable cause. Impugned order is set aside and effective grounds of appeal raised by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes. is concerned, the same is against the levy of penalty u/s.271AAC(1) of the Act at ₹9,47,471. We note that the impugned order passed by ld.CIT(A) against this penalty is also exparte and delay of 93 days has not been condoned. Therefore, adopting the view taken by us in disposing we condone the delay before ld.CIT(A) and remit back all the issues raised by the assessee in the instant appeal as well being consequential to the quantum proceedings. We direct ld.CIT(A) to first decide the quantum appeal and then decide the penalty appeal in accordance with law. Impugned order is set aside and the grounds of appeal raised by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes.

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes.