PRIMARY AGRICULTURAL CREDIT SOCIETY LIMITED CHANDUPATLA,VILLAGE CHANDUPATLA vs. ITO., WARD-1, SURYAPET

आदेश/ORDER PER MADHUSUDAN SAWDIA, A.M.: This appeal is filed by M/s. Primary Agricultural Credit Society Limited (“the assessee”), feeling aggrieved by the order passed by the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless

ITA No.836/Hyd/2024 2

Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi (“Ld. CIT(A)”), dated 06.10.2023 for the A.Y. 2017-18. 2. At the outset, it is seen that there was a delay of 264 days in filing of the appeal before us. The assessee has filed condonation petition along with an Affidavit, stating that the Accountant of the assessee was entrusted with the appellate work, who did not verify the income tax portal and could not came to know about the passing of order of Ld. CIT(A). Further, the assessee also did not receive any message from the Ld. CIT(A) about the passing of the order. Therefore, the Ld. AR submitted that the delay caused in filing the appeal before the ITAT is unintentional and he prayed before the bench to condone the delay. 3. Per contra, the Learned Department Representative (“Ld. DR”) relied on the decision of the Ld. CIT(A). 4. We have heard the rival contentions and also gone through the record in the light of the submissions made on either side. It is also seen that there was a delay of 826 days in filing the appeal before the Ld. CIT(A). The reason of delay given by the assessee before the Ld. CIT(A) was that, the assessee was in appeal before the ITAT for A.Y.

ITA No.836/Hyd/2024 3

2016-17 on the same issue, and was waiting for the decision of ITAT. The ITAT passed the order for A.Y. 2016-17 on 13.04.2022 and after receiving the order from the Tribunal, the assessee filed the appeal before the Ld. CIT(A) for A.Y. 2017-18 on 21.4.2022. Besides this, the learned counsel for the assessee had gone for spinal surgery, after which he became indisposed for several months and subsequently, he was also affected with Covid-19. The Ld. CIT(A) did not condone the delay stating that the assessee did not furnish any documentary evidence in support of their reason for delay. Further, the Ld. CIT(A) also stated that, the assessee could have hired other professional for filing the appeal. Finally, the Ld. CIT(A) did not convinced with the reason of delay and dismissed the appeal of the assessee. It is also seen that the assessee did not respond to the notices issued by the Ld. CIT(A). 4.1 Before us also, the assessee did not file any documentary evidence in support of the reason causing the delay in filing the appeal before us. The assessee neither explained the details before the Ld. CIT(A) with required documentary evidence nor before us. Further, he did not respond to the notices issued by the Ld. CIT(A).

ITA No.836/Hyd/2024 4

With all these facts before us, it is evident that the assessee is not

sincere towards the income tax proceedings. Therefore, we do not

find any good or sufficient cause on the part of the assessee qua delay

in filing the appeal before us. We further find that, on similar issue,

this co-ordinate bench in the case of Elite Infra Projects Pvt. Ltd. Vs.

DCIT, Circle 8(1) in ITA No.716 to 722/Hyd/2024 for A.Ys. 2011-12

to 2015-16 have held as under :

“ 10. We further find that on identical set of facts, the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of State of Madhya Pradesh Vs. Ramkumar Choudhary in SLP No.48636 of 2024 dated 29.11.2024 has decided that the whenever there is a plea for condonation of delay be it at the instance of private litigant or State, the delay is sought to be explained right from the time, the limitation starts. In the present case, the entire delay in filing of the appeal has not been properly explained by the assessee. The relevant portion of the order in the above said case, is to the following effect : “6. At the same time, we cannot simply brush aside the delay occurred in preferring the second appeal, due to callous and lackadaisical attitude on the part of the officials functioning in the State machinery. Though the Government adopts systematic approach in handling the legal issues and preferring the petitions/ applications/ appeals well within the time, due to the fault on the part of the officials in merely communicating the information on time, huge revenue loss will be caused to the Government exchequer. The present case is one such case, wherein, enormous delay of 1788 days occasioned in preferring the second appeal due to the lapses on the part of the officials functioning under the State, though valuable Government lands were involved. Therefore, we direct the State to streamline the machinery touching the legal issues, offering legal opinion, filing of cases before the Tribunal / Courts, etc., fix the responsibility on the officer(s) concerned, and penalize the officer(s), who 14 ITA No.716 to 722/Hyd/2024 is/are responsible for delay, deviation, lapses, etc., if any, to the value of the loss caused to the Government. Such direction will have to be followed by all the States scrupulously. 7. There is one another aspect of the matter which we must not ignore or overlook. Over a period of time, we have noticed that whenever there is a plea for condonation of delay be it at the instance of a private litigant or State the delay is sought to be explained right from the time, the limitation starts and if there is a

ITA No.836/Hyd/2024 5

delay of say 2 years or 3 years or 4 years till the end of the same. For example if the period of limitation is 90 days then the party seeking condonation has to explain why it was unable to institute the proceedings within that period of limitation. What events occurred after the 91st day till the last is of no consequence. The court is required to consider what came in the way of the party that it was unable to file it between the 1st day and the 90th day. It is true that a party is entitled to wait until the last day of limitation for filing an appeal. But when it allows the limitation to expire and pleads sufficient cause for not filing the appeal earlier, the sufficient cause must establish that because of some event or circumstance arising before the limitation expired it was not possible to file the appeal within time. No event or circumstance arising after the expiry of limitation can constitute such sufficient cause. There may be events or circumstances subsequent to the expiry of limitation which may further delay the filing of the appeal. But that the limitation has been allowed to expire without the appeal being filed must be traced to a cause arising within the period of limitation. (See: Ajit Singh Thakur Singh and Another v. State of Gujarat, AIR 1981 SC 733). 8. Accordingly, we dismiss this Special Leave Petition with costs of Rs.1,00,000/- to be deposited by the State within a period of two weeks from today with the Supreme Court Mediation Centre and file proof thereof. If the said amount, as directed, is not deposited by the State, the Registry shall take necessary steps for recovery of the same, in accordance with law.” 11. Therefore, respectfully, following the decision in the case of State of Madhya Pradesh Vs. Ramkumar Choudhary (supra), the petition for condoning the delay caused in filing the appeals are 15 ITA No.716 to 722/Hyd/2024 hereby dismissed. Accordingly, the appeals of the assessee are dismissed.” Respectfully following the decision of this co-ordinate bench cited

supra, we dismiss the appeal of the assessee.

Order pronounced in the open Court on 20th Dec., 2024.

Sd/- Sd/-

(LALIET KUMAR) (MADHUSUDAN SAWDIA) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Hyderabad. Dated: 20.12.2024. * Reddy gp

ITA No.836/Hyd/2024 6

Copy of the Order forwarded to : 1. M/s. Primary Agricultural Credit Society Limited, Chandupatla Village, Bhongir, Nalgonda-508 216 2. ITO, Ward-1, Suryapet. 3. Pr.CIT, Hyderabad. 4. DR, ITAT, Hyderabad. 5. Guard file. BY ORDER,