Loading judgment…
Facts
The assessee, Kotapadu Primary Agricultural Cooperative Society, filed two appeals against orders of the Ld. CIT(A) for Assessment Years 2018-19 and 2019-20. The appeals were dismissed by the Ld. CIT(A) on grounds of limitation due to a 37-day delay in filing the appeal. The assessee claimed the delay was due to unavoidable circumstances and sought condonation.
Held
The Tribunal noted that the petition for condonation of delay was filed for the first time before them and the Ld. CIT(A) had not examined it. Considering the principles of natural justice, the Tribunal set aside the impugned orders on the limited issue of delay and remitted the matter back to the Ld. CIT(A). The Ld. CIT(A) is directed to first adjudicate the condonation petition and then proceed to hear the appeal on merits if the delay is condoned.
Key Issues
Whether the Ld. CIT(A) erred in dismissing the appeals on the ground of limitation without properly considering the petition for condonation of delay, thus violating principles of natural justice.
Sections Cited
250, 147, 144, 69A, 144B, 130, 151A, 148A, 148, 151, 249(3)
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Hyderabad ‘ DB-A ‘ Bench, Hyderabad
Before: Shri Vijay Pal Rao, Vice-Shri Madhusudan Sawdia
ORDER Per Madhusudan Sawdia, A.M.: These two appeals are filed by Kotapadu Primary Agricultural Cooperative Society (“the assessee”), feeling aggrieved by the separate orders passed by the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi (“Ld. CIT(A)”) both dated 28.02.2025 for the A.Y 2018-19 and A.Y. 2019-20 respectively. Since identical issues are involved in these two appeals, for the sake of convenience, these were Page 1 of 7 heard together and are being disposed of by this common and consolidated order.
for A.Y. 2018-19: 2. The assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal:
The assessee has also raised the following additional grounds of appeal: “
1. 1. The assessment order passed under section 147 r.w.s. 144B is vitiated by legal infirmities. The notices issued by the jurisdictional A.O (ITO Ward-1,Ongole) under sections 148A(d) dated 07.04.2022 and 148 dated 09.04.2022 are contrary to the mandatory provisions of sections 144B, 130 and 151A of the Income Tax Act, and therefore, invalid.
2. The show cause notice under section 148A(b) dated 24.03.2022, served on the same day, is invalid for failure to provide the statutorily required 7 clear days for compliance. As per settled legal principles, exclusion of the date of service and the terminal date is mandatory. The re-assessment initiated on the basis of such a defective notice is bad in law and void ab initio.
1. 3. The notice under section 148 was issued without obtaining prior approval from the specified authority as required under section 151, rendering the proceedings invalid and unsustainable in law”.
The Learned Authorized Representative (“Ld. AR”) has submitted that the assessee is not pressing the additional ground no. 2. He further submitted that the additional grounds so raised are admissible in view of judgment rendered by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of National Thermal Power Co. Ltd. v. CIT (1998) 229 ITR 383 (SC). The Learned Departmental Representative (“Ld. DR”) did not raise any objection for admission of the additional grounds. The prayer for admission of additional grounds is being admitted for adjudication in terms of Rule 11 of the Income Tax (Appellate Tribunal) Rules, 1963 owing to the fact that objections raised in additional grounds are legal in nature for which relevant facts are stated to be emanating from the existing records.
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
Page 4 of 7 statutory and administrative compliances. Due to such heavy involvement in statutory and administrative work, the delay in filing the appeal occurred. It was further submitted that the delay was neither deliberate nor intentional and occurred due to bona fide and unavoidable circumstances. Accordingly, the assessee prayed that the delay in filing the appeal may be condoned and the appeal may be admitted for adjudication on merits.
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)
Page 5 of 7 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.
The next issue involved in this appeal is identical to the issues raised in for the 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.
To sum up, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes.