SEVABHAVI BRAMNAN NAGARI SAHAKARI PATSANSTHA MARYADIT RAVTALE CHIPLU,RATNAGIRI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, RATNAGIRI
Facts
The assessee, a cooperative society, was assessed ex-parte under section 144 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, with additions for unexplained cash deposits. The assessee filed an appeal before the CIT(A) with a significant delay. The CIT(A) dismissed the appeal without condoning the delay.
Held
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal before the CIT(A), citing the issues faced by the assessee due to fraud by the erstwhile secretary and the COVID-19 pandemic. The Tribunal remitted the case back to the CIT(A)/NFAC for de novo adjudication on merits.
Key Issues
Whether the delay in filing the appeal before the CIT(A) should be condoned and whether the case should be remanded for fresh adjudication on merits.
Sections Cited
144, 139, 142(1), 69A, 249(3), 249(2)(c)
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, PUNE BENCHES “SMC”, PUNE
Before: DR.MANISH BORAD
The captioned appeal at the instance of assessee pertaining to A.Y. 2017-18 is directed against the order dated 30.12.2024 framed by National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi (NFAC) arising out of Assessment Order dated 29.12.2019 passed u/s. 144 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short ‘the Act’).
Registry has pointed out that the appeal is barred by limitation as the assessee has filed the appeal before this Tribunal with a delay of 267 days. Assessee society has filed condonation application stating that at the relevant point of time, the erstwhile secretary did some fraud and the Management had to face lot of issues and further enquiries were conducted by the Govt. of Maharashtra. Owing to the above problems, the delay occurred in filing the appeal before this Tribunal. Considering the above averments
2 Sevabhavi Bramnan Nagari Sahakari Patsanstha Maryadit Ravtale Chiplu
made by the assessee society and also adopting justice oriented approach, I find that the delay is not intentional and therefore placing reliance on the judgments of Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Collector, Land Acquisition, Anantnag & Anr. Vs. Mst. Katiji & Ors. reported in (1987) 2 Cooperative Societies Act, 1960. It is engaged in the business of accepting deposits from Members and providing credit facilities to the Members. During the year under consideration, ld. Assessing Officer observed that assessee made large cash deposits but has not filed the regular return u/s.139 of the Act. Even there was no reply to the statutory notices issued u/s.142(1) of the Act. In the absence of response/explanation from the side of assessee, ld. Assessing Officer vide order dated 29.12.2019 concluded the assessment u/s.144 of the Act making addition of cash deposits at Rs.39,41,000/- as unexplained money in the hands of assessee u/s.69A of the Act. Aggrieved assessee preferred appeal before ld.CIT(A) on 25.09.2023, however ld.CIT(A) dismissed the appeal of the assessee in limine without condoning the delay by holding as under :
3 Sevabhavi Bramnan Nagari Sahakari Patsanstha Maryadit Ravtale Chiplu
“13. In light of the aforesaid principles, I am of the considered view that the appellant has failed to prove the sufficient cause to the effect that because of some event or circumstance arising before limitation expired, it was not possible for the appellant to file the appeal within time as mandated u/s 249(3) read with section 249(2)(c) of the Act. Therefore, condonation of delay for filing appeal is rejected and it is held that the instant appeal is barred by limitation. Consequently, the appeal is not admitted and it is dismissed as unadmitted. 14.In the result, the appeal of the appellant is dismissed.”
Now the assessee is in appeal before this Tribunal assailing the impugned exparte order.
I have heard the rival submissions and perused the record placed before us. In the instant case, it is evident that assessee society has not participated in the proceedings before the authorities which resulted into passing of exparte orders. Ld.CIT(A) has not condoned the delay in filing the appeal and dismissed the appeal of the assessee in limine. Further, the assessment order was passed on 29.12.2019 and the assessee filed appeal before ld.CIT(A) on 25.09.2023 as against the due date 28.01.2020 and there was delay of 3 years 8 month (approx.) in filing the appeal before ld.CIT(A). During the period from March, 2020 till May 2022, entire nation has witnessed covid-19 pandemic issue and there were restrictions on movement of general public and considering the difficulties faced by the litigants, the period of almost two years have been excluded by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Cognizance for Extension of Limitation In re (2022) 441 ITR 722 (SC).
4 Sevabhavi Bramnan Nagari Sahakari Patsanstha Maryadit Ravtale Chiplu
Before me, ld. Counsel for the assessee that due to reasons beyond control of the assessee it could not participate in the proceedings before the authorities and the fact remains that the source of cash deposits are out of deposits made by the Members. Given an opportunity, the assessee is in a position to substantiate the alleged cash deposits. A prayer is made to afford one more opportunity to the assessee. On the other hand, ld. DR supported the order of ld.CIT(A).
However, considering the fact that the assessee society faced certain problems due to fraud committed by the erstwhile secretary and adopting a justice oriented approach, the delay before ld.CIT(A) deserves condonation. I therefore condone the delay before ld.CIT(A). Since ld.CIT(A) had no occasion to decide the issues on merit, I am of the considered opinion that the issues on merit deserves to be remitted back to the ld.CIT(A)/NFAC for denovo adjudication in light of prayer made by ld. Counsel for the assessee. In view thereof, without dwelling into merits of the issue, the issues on merits are being remitted to the file of ld.CIT(A)/NFAC. Assessee is also directed to remain vigilant and not to take adjournment unless otherwise required for reasonable cause, failing which the ld.CIT(A)/NFAC shall be free to proceed in accordance with law. Findings of the CIT(A)/NFAC is set aside and Grounds of appeal raised by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes.
5 Sevabhavi Bramnan Nagari Sahakari Patsanstha Maryadit Ravtale Chiplu
In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes.
Order pronounced on this 17th day of March, 2026. (MANISH BORAD) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER पुणे / Pune; दिन ांक / Dated : 17th March, 2026. Satish
आदेश की प्रतिलिपि अग्रेपिि / Copy of the Order forwarded to : अपील र्थी / The Appellant. 1. प्रत्यर्थी / The Respondent.
The Pr. CIT concerned. विभ गीय प्रतितनधि, आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण, “SMC” बेंच, 4. पुणे / DR, ITAT, “SMC” Bench, Pune. ग र्ड फ़ इल / Guard File. 5. आिेश नुस र / BY ORDER,
////
