PRIMARY AGRICULTURAL COOPERATIVE SOCIETY LIMITED CHINNA GOLKONDA,SHAMSHABAD V. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-8(1), HYDERABAD

MA 53/HYD/2025

AI Insights

The case involves the Primary Agricultural Cooperative Society Limited, Chinna Golkonda, which did not file its income tax return for the assessment year 2017-18. The Income Tax Officer passed an ex-parte order under Section 144 due to unexplained deposits in the society's bank accounts. The society's appeal was dismissed by the CIT(Appeals) due to a significant delay in filing, which was not condoned due to the absence of a condonation petition. The Tribunal upheld this decision, leading to the society's filing of a miscellaneous application, which was also dismissed.

• Counselvise Citation: [2025] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 786027 (ITAT-HYDERABAD)
• Duration Of Justice: 4 month(s) 8 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Miscellaneous Application
• Pronouncement Date: 29-10-2025
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: DB-A
• Assessment Year: 2017-2018
• Appeal Filed On: 20-06-2025
• Other Referred Cases: CIT v. Reliance Telecom Ltd. (2021) 133 taxmann.com 41 (SC)
• Laws Referred To: Andhra Pradesh Co-operative Societies Act, 1965, Section 144 of the Act, Section 69A of the Act, Section 254(2) of the Act
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Keywords: Condonation of delay; Search and seizure
• Section: 144

Judgement Text

"1 MA 53/Hyd/2025 Primary Agricultural CooperaƟve Society Limited, China Golkonda vs. ITO आयकर अपीलȣय Ûयायाͬधकरण मɅ, हैदराबाद ‘ए’ बɅच, हैदराबाद IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL Hyderabad ‘ A ‘ Bench, Hyderabad Įी रवीश सूद, माननीय ÛयाǓयक सदèय एवं Įी मधुसूदन सावͫडया, माननीय लेखा सदèय SHRI RAVISH SOOD, HON’BLE JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI MADHUSUDAN SAWDIA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER M.A. No. 53/Hyd/2025 (In आयकरअपीलसं./I.T.A.No.1262/Hyd/2024) (िनधाŊरण वषŊ/ Assessment Year: 2017-18) Primary Agricultural Cooperative Society Limited, Chinna Golkonda, Hyderabad. PAN : AABAP8135B Income Tax Officer, Ward – 8(1), Hyderabad. (अपीलाथŎ/ Appellant) (ŮȑथŎ/ Respondent) करदाता का Ůितिनिधȕ/ Assessee Represented by : Sri S. Rama Rao, Advocate राजˢ का Ůितिनिधȕ/ Department Represented by : Sri Gurpreet Singh, Sr. AR सुनवाई समाɑ होने की ितिथ/ Date of Conclusion of Hearing : 08/08/2025 घोषणा की तारीख/Date of Pronouncement : 29/10/2025 O R D E R PER RAVISH SOOD, J.M. The present miscellaneous application filed by the assessee society arises from the order passed by the Tribunal in ITA No. 1262/Hyd/2024, dated 28.04.2025 for the assessment year 2017–18. Printed from counselvise.com 2 MA 53/Hyd/2025 Primary Agricultural CooperaƟve Society Limited, China Golkonda vs. ITO 2. Succinctly stated, the assessee society, which is a primary agricultural co-operative society registered under the Andhra Pradesh Co- operative Societies Act, 1965, and engaged in accepting deposits from its members and providing agricultural finance to them, had not filed its return of income for the subject year. 3. Thereafter, the A.O. passed an ex-parte order under Section 144 of the Act, dated 04.12.2019, wherein, in the absence of any explanation regarding the source of the deposits of Rs. 11,16,07,860/- in the bank accounts of the assessee society, he held the same as having been sourced out of its unexplained money under Section 69A of the Act. 4. Thereafter, the CIT(Appeals) National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi, dated 13.09.2024, dismissed the appeal for the reason that, though the same involved an inordinate delay of 1,379 days, but the assessee society had failed to file any condonation petition explaining such delay. 5. The assessee society assailed the order passed by the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi, before the Tribunal. The Tribunal, vide its order passed in ITA No. 1262/Hyd/2024, dated 28.04.2025, observed that since the Printed from counselvise.com 3 MA 53/Hyd/2025 Primary Agricultural CooperaƟve Society Limited, China Golkonda vs. ITO assessee society had not filed any condonation petition explaining the reason leading to the inordinate delay of 1,379 days before the CIT(A), therefore, the latter was justified in declining to condone the same and dismiss the appeal. 6. The assessee society has filed the present application, seeking the rectification of the order passed by the Tribunal in ITA No. 1262/Hyd/2024, dated 28.04.2025, for the reason that it had, while dismissing the appeal, failed to consider the existence of a “sufficient cause” leading to the delay, which, thus, constitutes a mistake apparent from record. 7. The learned Authorised Representative (for short, “AR”) for the assessee society at the threshold of hearing of the application took us through the assessee’s application. The Ld. AR submitted that the assessee society became aware of the assessment order dated 04.12.2019 only upon receiving the communication from the Tax Recovery Officer on 06.10.2023, and had, thereafter, involving no further loss of time, filed the appeal with the CIT(Appeals) on 13.10.2023. Elaborating further on his contention, the Ld. AR submitted that the period of delay involved in filing the appeal before the CIT(Appeals), primarily included the period between 15.03.2020 to 29.05.2022, which stands excluded by the Hon’ble Supreme Court’s suo-motu order extending Printed from counselvise.com 4 MA 53/Hyd/2025 Primary Agricultural CooperaƟve Society Limited, China Golkonda vs. ITO limitation during the COVID-19 pandemic. The Ld. AR submitted the balance period of delay that remained worked out at 572 days (out of total delay of 1,379 days). The Ld. AR further submitted that the non-filing of a condonation petition before the CIT(Appeal) was a procedural oversight, which should not defeat substantive justice. The Ld. AR submitted that the Tribunal ought to have considered the aforesaid material aspects before dismissing the appeal. 8. Per Contra, the learned Departmental Representative (for short, “DR”) vehemently objected to the application filed by the assessee applicant. The Ld. DR submitted that the Tribunal had already considered all relevant facts, and after taking due cognizance of the fact that no condonation petition explaining the inordinate delay was ever filed by the assessee society before the CIT(A), had taken a conscious decision and dismissed the appeal. The Ld. DR submitted that the present application filed by the assessee society is only an attempt on its part to re-argue the matter and seek review of the order under the guise of a rectification petition, which is beyond the scope of section 254(2) of the Act. 9. We have thoughtfully considered the contentions advanced by the Ld. Authorised Representatives of both parties in the backdrop of the material available on record. Printed from counselvise.com 5 MA 53/Hyd/2025 Primary Agricultural CooperaƟve Society Limited, China Golkonda vs. ITO 10. Admittedly, the Tribunal, while disposing off the assessee’s appeal in ITA No. 1262/Hyd/2024, dated 28.04.2025, vide its order dated 28.04.2025, had after detailed consideration of the fact that the assessee society had neither filed any application for condonation of delay nor offered any explanation for the inordinate delay of 1,379 days before the CIT(A), upheld his order. We may herein observe that the Tribunal at Para 14 of its order had recorded a clear finding that no infirmity arises from the CIT(A)’s refusal to condone the inordinate delay involved in the appeal before him. 11. We are of the considered view that the assessee’s present plea that the Tribunal, while disposing off the appeal, ought to have reduced the period of the impugned delay by excluding the pandemic period, and also that the existence of a “sufficient cause” leading to the delay on filing the appeal before the CIT(A) has not been adjudicated, effectively seeks a reappraisal of the facts and re-argument on merits, which, we are afraid goes beyond the limited jurisdiction conferred upon the Tribunal under section 254(2) of the Act. 12. As per the settled position of law, the Tribunal in exercise of the powers vested with it under section 254(2) of the Act can only rectify a mistake apparent from the record, and cannot review or re-hear the Printed from counselvise.com 6 MA 53/Hyd/2025 Primary Agricultural CooperaƟve Society Limited, China Golkonda vs. ITO appeal. Our view is supported by the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT v. Reliance Telecom Ltd. (2021) 133 taxmann.com 41 (SC), wherein it is held that in exercise of powers under section 254(2), the Tribunal cannot re-visit its earlier decision and review the same. What can be rectified is a mistake apparent from the record, and not something which requires re-appreciation of evidence or re- argument on merits. The Hon’ble Apex Court has further clarified that an attempt to re-argue the case or change the conclusion reached earlier amounts to review, which falls beyond the Tribunal’s jurisdiction under section 254(2) of the Act. 13. We, thus, in terms of our aforesaid deliberations, are of a firm conviction that, as in the present case, there is no glaring, obvious, patent or manifest error apparent on record, therefore, the seeking of review of the order passed by the Tribunal while disposing off the appeal filed by the assessee society in ITA No. 1262/Hyd/2024, dated 28.04.2025 cannot be permitted. 14. Resultantly, the miscellaneous Application filed by the assessee society being devoid and bereft of any substance is dismissed. Printed from counselvise.com 7 MA 53/Hyd/2025 Primary Agricultural CooperaƟve Society Limited, China Golkonda vs. ITO Order pronounced in the Open Court on this 29th day of October, 2025. Sd/- Sd/- Sd/- (Įी मधुसूदन सावͫडया) (MADHUSUDAN SAWDIA) लेखा सद˟/ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Sd/- Sd/- (Įी रवीश सूद) (RAVISH SOOD) Ɋाियक सद˟/JUDICIAL MEMBER Sd/- Hyderabad, dated: 29.10.2025. Okk/sps आदेशकी Ůितिलिप अŤेिषत/ Copy of the order forwarded to:- 1. िनधाŊįरती/The Assessee : Primary Agricultural Cooperative Society Limited, Chinna Golkonda, 1-4/1, Chinna Golkonda, Via Shamshaba, Ranga Reddy District – 50218, Telangana. 2. राजˢ/ The Revenue : Income Tax Officer, Ward – 8(1), Hyderabad. 3. The Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, Hyderabad. 4. िवभागीयŮितिनिध, आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, हैदराबाद / DR, ITAT, Hyderabad 5. गाडŊफ़ाईल / Guard file आदेशानुसार / BY ORDER Sr. Private Secretary ITAT, Hyderabad Printed from counselvise.com "