Loading judgment…

DD 587 A, VELLODU PACCS,DINDIGUL vs ITO, WARD-1,, DINDIGUL | BharatTax

DD 587 A, VELLODU PACCS,DINDIGUL vs. ITO, WARD-1,, DINDIGUL

ITA 3282/CHNY/2025Status: DisposedITAT Chennai04 February 2026AY 2019-20Bench: SHRI GEORGE GEORGE K, VICE PRESIDENTAND MS. PADMAVATHY.S (Accountant Member)1 pages

AI SummaryAllowed

Facts

The assessee, a primary agriculture co-operative credit society, did not file its return of income for AY 2019-20. The AO reopened the assessment and made an addition under Section 69A for unexplained money. The assessee filed an appeal before the CIT(A) with a delay of 181 days, which was dismissed in limine.

Held

The Tribunal held that there was a delay of 48 days in filing the appeal before it. The assessee provided a reasonable and sufficient cause for the delay, citing issues with auditor appointment and the Corona Pandemic. The Tribunal condoned the delay and remitted the appeal back to the CIT(A) for adjudication on merits.

Key Issues

Whether the delay in filing the appeal before the CIT(A) should be condoned. Whether the appeal should be adjudicated on merits after condoning the delay.

Sections Cited

250, 148, 69A

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, ‘A’ BENCH: CHENNAI

Before: SHRI GEORGE GEORGE KAND MS. PADMAVATHY.S

Hearing: 21.01.2026Pronounced: 04.02.2026

आदेश / O R D E R

PER PADMAVATHY.S, A.M: This appeal by the assessee is against the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)/National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi, (in short "CIT(A)") passed u/s. 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short "the Act") dated 15.07.2025 for Assessment Year (AY) 2019-20.

2.

The assessee is a primary agriculture co-operative credit society and did not file the return of income during the year under consideration. Since the assessee had deposited cash amounting to Rs. 2,31,83,000/-, the A.O reopened the assessment by issue of notice u/s. 148 of the Act. The A.O completed the assessment by making an addition u/s. 69A of the Act towards unexplained money stating that the assessee has not furnished sufficient details explaining the source. Aggrieved, the assessee filed further appeal before the CIT(A). There was a delay of 181 days in filing the appeal before the CIT(A) and the CIT(A) did not condone the delay and dismissed the appeal in limine. The assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal against the order of the CIT(A).

3.

There is a delay of 48 days in filing the appeal before the Tribunal. The assessee filed an affidavit along with a petition for condoning the delay stating that the appellate order not received by the assessee only upon receipt of the officer for recovery proceedings, the assessee came to know of the appeal being disposed off. Having heard both the parties and perused the material on record, we are of the view that there is a reasonable and sufficient cause for the delay in filing the appeal before the Tribunal. Therefore following the Hon’ble Supreme Court decision in the case of Collector, Land Acquisition Vs. MST.Katiji & Ors., (167 ITR 471) (SC) we condone the delay in filing the appeal and admit the appeal for adjudication.

4.

We have heard the parties, and perused the material available on record. We notice that the assessee has made submissions before the CIT(A) with regard to the delay in filing the appeal as extracted below:

1.

“2.2 The appellant has requested for the condonation in delay in filing of the appeal and has submitted his reply in this regard in Form No.35 as under:- The assessee is a cooperative credit society and the society secretaries are mostly appointed on the basis of promotion basically they are DD 587 A Vellodu Primary Agricultural Co-operative Credit Society :- 3 -: from clerk posting, and in few cases they are only qualified with diploma in Cooperative and the society does not have qualified accountant to comply with accounting and Taxation Laws and Procedures. So to oversee and verify the accounts of the society the cooperative societies act prescribes Assistant Director of cooperative audit to conduct the statutory cooperative audit and they, in the course of their verification, verify the books of accounts and produce report on such verification. Due to the lack of sufficient number of Cooperative auditors in the Cooperative Audit Department during the previous years there was a delay in completion and issuance of reports to the society and also Due to Corona Pandemic-19, Delay in completion of Audit and lack of manpower we were unable to file the return of Income of the society for the respective year. To resolve the above issues Tamil Nadu state accounting and taxation services society Itd was formed and is primarily engaged in the object of creating awareness to the cooperative societies to comply with tax related matters and providing compliance of tax related services to the societies. After the awareness meeting conducted was conducted by them the administrative officers of the District has appointed them as the auditor for this society and as soon as the appointment of auditor, the appeal has been filed. And hereafter there will be no lack on the part of the assessee to comply with the tax related matters. Hence we kindly pray to condone the delay in filing the appeal and give us the opportunity to produce all the necessary documentary evidence related to the assessment proceedings for our society. In the case of N Balakrishnan vs. M. Krishnamurthy 1998 9 TMI 602 Supreme Court Other Citation: 2008 228 E.L.T. 162 SC, 1998 AIR 3222, 1998 1 Suppl. SCR 403, 1998 7 SCC 123, 1998 6 JT 242, 1998 5 SCALE 105, it was averred/held, as follows, by the Hon'ble Supreme Court 9. It is axiomatic that condonation of delay is a matter of discretion of the court. Section 5 of the Limitation Act does not say that such discretion can be exercised only if the delay is within a certain limit. Length of delay is no matter, acceptability of the explanation is the only criterion. Sometimes delay of the shortest range may be uncondonable due to a want of acceptable explanation whereas in certain other cases, delay of a very long range can be condoned as the explanation thereof is satisfactory. Once the court accepts the explanation as sufficient, it is the result of positive exercise of discretion and normally the superior court should not disturb such finding, much less in revisional jurisdiction, unless the exercise of discretion was on wholly untenable grounds or arbitrary or perverse. But it is a different matter when the first court refuses to condone the delay. In such cases, the superior court would be free to consider the cause shown for the delay afresh and it is open to such superior court to come to its own finding even untrammelled by the conclusion of the lower court. Thus we request your goodself to DD 587 A Vellodu Primary Agricultural Co-operative Credit Society :- 4 -: condone the delay and provide us one time opportunity to submit all the required documents and evidences supporting our claim.”