KOTAPADU PRIMARY AGRICULTURAL COOPERATIVE SOCIETY,PRAKASAM vs. ITO., WARD-1, ONGOLE

The brief facts of the case are that the assessee is a Primary Agricultural Cooperative Society, filed an appeal before the Ld. CIT(A) against the assessment order passed by the Learned Assessing Officer (“Ld. AO”) for Assessment Year 2018–19 under section 147 read with sections 144 and 144B of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (“the Act”), dated 26.02.2024. However, there was a delay of 37 days in filing the said appeal before the Ld. CIT(A). The Ld. CIT(A) dismissed the appeal on the ground of limitation, holding that the assessee had failed to establish sufficient cause for condonation of delay as required under section 249(3) of the Act.

Aggrieved by the order of the Ld. CIT (A), the assessee is in further appeal before this Tribunal. The assessee has filed a petition for condonation of delay along with an affidavit explaining the reasons for the delay in filing the appeal before the Ld. CIT(A). It has been submitted that the assessee is a Primary Agricultural Cooperative Society having about 1,000 members and is engaged in accepting deposits and providing agricultural crop loans and other financial assistance to its members. It was explained that during the relevant period, the Chief Executive Officer and the staff of the society were heavily engaged in year-end activities such as finalization of accounts, computation and distribution of interest, renewal of loans of members, reconciliation and confirmation of balances in respect of loans obtained from Prakasam District Co-operative Bank, Addanki Branch, and other

Per contra, the Learned Departmental Representative (“Ld. DR”) did not raise any serious objection to the prayer for condonation of delay.

We have carefully gone through the order of the Ld. CIT(A) and find that the assessee failed to comply with the notice issued by the Ld. CIT(A) dated 23.12.2024 and sought an adjournment of 30 days in response to notice dated 31.12.2024. However, after seeking such adjournment, the assessee did not respond thereafter till the passing of the order by the Ld. CIT(A) on 20.02.2025. The assessee also did not file any explanation for the delay along with supporting documentary evidence before the Ld. CIT(A). The petition for condonation of delay along with affidavit has been filed for the first time before this Tribunal, and therefore, the Ld. CIT(A) had no occasion to examine the same. In view of the present facts and considering the principles of natural justice, we deem it appropriate to set aside the impugned order on this limited issue and remit the matter back to the file of the Ld. CIT(A)

The next issue involved in this appeal is identical to the issues raised in A.Y. 2018-19. Therefore, our observations and findings in shall mutatis mutandis apply to this appeal also. Accordingly, we set aside the impugned order to the file of the Ld. CIT(A) with a direction to first adjudicate upon the condonation petition along with the affidavit filed by the assessee. If the Ld. CIT(A) is satisfied with the explanation and condones the delay, he shall thereafter proceed to adjudicate the appeal on merits, including the additional grounds admitted by this Tribunal, in accordance with law after providing reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee.

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in is allowed for statistical purposes.

To sum up, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes.