AA 291 THALAVADY PRIMARY AGRICULTURAL COOP CREDIT SOCIETY LIMITED,ERODE vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 2(1), ERODE, ERODE

The assessee is a cooperative credit society and filed the return of income for A.Y 2020-21 on 29.12.2020 declaring total income at Nil. The case was selected for scrutiny and statutory notices were duly served on the assessee. The A.O noticed that the unsecured loans have increased by an amount of Rs. 3,38,63,002/- as compared to A.Y 2019-20. The A.O held that considering the low income of the assessee the substantial increase in unsecured loan is not properly supported. The A.O accordingly added the said amount as business income of the assessee on the ground that the loans have remained unexplained by the assessee. The A.O also disallowed the deduction claimed by the assessee u/s. 80P of the Act stating that the assessee neither offered any explanation nor has filed any details with regard to the said claim. The A.O also initiated penalty proceedings u/s. 270A and 271AAC(1) of the Act. Aggrieved by the orders of the A.O, the assessee preferred further appeal before the CIT(A).

There was a delay of 2 years and 4 months in the filing the appeal before the CIT(A) against the order of the A.O u/s. 143(3) of the Act and there was a delay of 2 years and 1 month in filing the appeal before the CIT(A) against the orders of the A.O passed u/s. 270A & 271AAC(1) of the Act. The CIT(A) did not condone the delay and dismissed all the appeals in limine. The assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal against the order of the CIT(A).

There is a delay of 5 days in filing the appeal before the Tribunal and the assessee filed a petition for condonation. It is stated in the affidavit that the delay is due to the pre-occupation of tax consultant and that delay is unintentional.

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 of 5 days in filing the appeal and admit the appeal for adjudication.

We have heard the both the parities, perused the material available on record. The Ld. AR submitted that the delay in filing the appeal before the CIT(A) was due to the fact that the assessee was not having proper professional support who can guide the tax matters. The Ld. AR further submitted that the assessee subsequently appointed a tax consultant and once the tax consultant was on board, the assessee was correctly advised to file the appeal before the CIT(A) against the order of the A.O. The Ld. AR also submitted that the officers in charge are not well versed with tax related matters and prayed that the delay in fling the appeal before the CIT(A) be condoned. We notice from the records that the reason for making the additions is that the details have not been submitted by the assessee. The ld AR submitted before us that the assessee has a genuine case on merits and accordingly prayed for one final opportunity. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, we are inclined to give one more opportunity to the assessee to represent the case properly before the CIT(A). Accordingly, we remit the appeals back to the CIT(A) with a direction to condone the delay and to consider the additions/disallowances made by the A.O on merits by calling for relevant details in order to decide the case in accordance with law. The assessee is directed to submit the relevant details and cooperate with the appellate proceedings. It is ordered accordingly.

Since, we are set aside the impugned issue arising from the quantum appeal back to the CIT(A), the penalty u/s. 270A and 271AAC(1) of the Act which are consequential have become infructuous and dismissed accordingly.

In the result, the appeal in is allowed for statistical purposes and the appeal in & 2732/Chny/2025 are dismissed as infructuous.