Loading judgment…
Facts
The appellant, a co-operative society, did not file its income tax return for AY 2017-18. Based on information of a Rs. 12,28,000/- cash deposit during demonetisation, the AO issued a notice under Section 142(1), which the appellant ignored. Consequently, the AO passed a best judgment assessment under Section 144, treating the cash deposit as unexplained investment. The CIT(A) subsequently dismissed the appeal for non-fulfillment of conditions under Section 249(4)(b).
Held
The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal dismissed the appeal, noting a significant delay of 572 days in filing. The Tribunal rejected the appellant's reason for delay, which attributed it to the illness of the tax consultant, emphasizing that a litigant cannot shift the burden and that those who delay in approaching the court should not be granted extraordinary relief, citing a Supreme Court decision.
Key Issues
Whether the delay of 572 days in filing the appeal should be condoned based on the illness of the tax consultant, and whether the CIT(A) was correct in dismissing the appeal for non-fulfillment of statutory conditions.
Sections Cited
142(1), 144, 249(4)(b)
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, COCHIN BENCH
Before: SHRI INTURI RAMA RAO, AM
Assessment Year: 2017-18 Nooranad Service Co-op. Society Ltd. .......... Appellant Padanilam P.O., Nooranad, Alappuzha 690529 [PAN: AABAN2292F] vs. The Income Tax Officer, WD-2, Thiruvalla .......... Respondent Assessee by: ------- None ------- Revenue by: Smt. Leena Lal, Sr. D.R. Date of Hearing: 06.11.2025 Date of Pronouncement: 21.11.2025 O R D E R This appeal filed by the assessee is directed against the order of the National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi [CIT(A)] dated 23.01.2024 for Assessment Year (AY) 2017-18.
Brief facts of the case are that that appellant is a co-operative society registered under the Kerala State Co-operative Societies Act, 1969. It is engaged in the business of accepting deposits from members and providing credit facilities to members. The return of income for AY 2017-18 was not filed by the appellant society. Based on the information that the appellant had deposited cash amounting to Rs. 12,28,000/- in the District Co-operative Bank Nooranad Service Co-op. Society Ltd. during demonetisation period, the Income Tax Officer, Ward-2, Thiruvalla (hereinafter called "the AO") issued a notice u/s. 142(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (the Act) on 13.03.2018 calling upon the appellant to furnish return of income on or before 31.03.2018. The appellant neither responded to the above notice nor filed the return of income. Therefore, the AO was constrained to pass best judgement assessment vide order dated 28.12.2019 passed u/s. 144 of the Act at total income of Rs. 12,28,000/-. While doing so, the AO treated the cash deposit of Rs. 12,28,000/- as unexplained investment of the appellant.
Being aggrieved, an appeal was filed before the CIT(A), who vide the impugned order dismissed the appeal of the assessee by stating that the appellant failed to fulfill the necessary conditions for admission of appeal before the CIT(A) as per section 249(4)(b) of the Act.
Being aggrieved, the appellant is in appeal before this Tribunal in the present appeal.
At the outset, I find that there was delay in filing the appeal by 572 days. The appellant filed a petition seeking condonation of delay stating that order of the CIT(A) was not communicated to the appellant either though e-mail or through physical service. The appellant further submitted that the Tax Consultant to whom the appellant had entrusted the tax matters had suffered from physical Nooranad Service Co-op. Society Ltd. disability and admitted to hospital for treatment of different illness. Thus, the appellant submits that the prolonged illness of the Tax Consultant was the main reason for the delay in filing the appeal. I have carefully perused the averments made in the petition seeking condonation of delay. The appellant society simply attempts to shift the burden to the shoulders of the Tax Consultant. Keeping in view the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Mrinmoy Maity v. Chhanda Koley [2024] SCC OnLine SC 551 wherein the Hon’ble Supreme Court observed that an litigant who approach the court belatedly or in other words sleeps over his rights for a considerable period of time, wakes up from his deep slumber ought not to be granted the extraordinary relief as delay is defined as guilty.
In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee stands dismissed.
Order pronounced in the open court on 21st November, 2025.