THE ACHIRUPAKKAM URBAN CO OP CREDIT SOCIETY LTD.NO.1624,KANCHIPURAM V. ITO WARD 22(4), TAMBARAM

ITA 438/CHNY/2026

AI Insights

The case involves The Achirupakkam Urban Co-op. Credit Society Ltd., the appellant, contesting an order by the Income Tax Officer, Ward 22(4), Tambaram, Chennai, which assessed the society's income at 6,29,470 for the assessment year 2019-20. The appellant's initial appeal was dismissed by the CIT(A) due to a significant delay of 630 days in filing the appeal, which the CIT(A) found to be inordinate and inadequately justified. The Tribunal, referencing the Supreme Court's emphasis on the strict application of the law of limitation, agreed with the CIT(A) and dismissed the appeal, emphasizing that the delay was not satisfactorily explained on a day-to-day basis as required by law.

• Duration Of Justice: 1 month(s) 25 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 24-03-2026
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: Chennai
• Assessment Year: 2019-2020
• Appeal Filed On: 29-01-2026
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act, 1961
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: V SREENIVASAN
• Assessee Lawyers: B.SURESH
• Keywords: Reasonable cause
• Section: 147

Judgement Text

"आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, ’डी’ Ɋायपीठ, चेɄई IN THE INCOME-TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ‘D’ BENCH, CHENNAI ŵी इंट ूरी रामाराव, लेखा सद˟ एवं ŵी एस.एस. िवʷनेũ रिव, Ɋाियक सद˟ क े समƗ । Before Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Accountant Member & Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi, Judicial Member आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.438/Chny/2026 िनधाŊरण वषŊ/Assessment Year: 2019-20 The Achirupakkam Urban Co-op. Credit Society Ltd. No. 1624, No. 07, V M Street, Acharapakkam, Kanchipuram – 603 301. [PAN: AAEAT5342F] Vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward 22(4), Tambaram, Chennai. (अपीलाथŎ/Appellant) (ŮȑथŎ/Respondent) अपीलाथŎ की ओर से / Appellant by : Shri B. Suresh, CA ŮȑथŎ की ओर से/Respondent by : Shri AR V Sreenivasan, CIT सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date of hearing : 16.03.2026 घोषणा की तारीख /Date of Pronouncement : 24.03.2026 आदेश /O R D E R PER S.S. VISWANETHRA RAVI, JUDICIAL MEMBER: This appeal filed by the assessee is directed against the order dated 26.12.2025 passed by the ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre [NFAC], Delhi for the assessment year 2019-20. 2. The assessee challenged the order of the ld. CIT(A) in dismissing the appeal of the assessee by not condoning the delay of 630 days in filing the appeal. Printed from counselvise.com I.T.A. No.438/Chny/26 2 3. At the outset, it is noted that the Assessing Officer, by adopting 8% of the credit entries in the bank account, determined total income of the assessee at ₹.6,29,470/- vide his order dated 02.02.2024 under section 147 r.w.s. 144 r.w.s. 144B of the Income Tax Act, 1961[“Act” in short]. The assessee, not satisfied with the said order, challenged the same before the ld. CIT(A) with a delay of 630 days in filing the appeal. We find the reasons for the said delay in Form 35 of the appeal memo, which was considered by the ld. CIT(A) at para 2.6 of the impugned order and held that the assessee failed to advance any cogent plausible reasons for each day of delay and rejected the delay condonation petition vide para 2.12 of the impugned order. On perusal of the reasons recorded by the ld. CIT(A), admittedly, as held by the ld. CIT(A) that the delay is inordinate and on examination of the reasons given by the assessee, we note that the delay is not explained on day- to-day basis as required under the law. 4. We find time and again, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has reminded that the concept of “liberal approach”, “justice oriented approach”, “substantial justice” should not be employed to frustrate or jettison the substantial law of limitation. Further, reasons must satisfy Printed from counselvise.com I.T.A. No.438/Chny/26 3 the authorities that the assessee was prevented by any sufficient cause, unless a satisfactory explanation is furnished, the authorities should not allow the petition for condonation of delay, in case the petition for condonation is allowed in condoning the delay without any justification, amounts to passing an order in violation of the statutory provisions and it tantamounts to showing utter disregard to legislature. Having keeping in mind, we find in the present case, the length of delay is definitely a relevant matter that this Tribunal must take into consideration while considering the reasons explained in the Form 35 as well as argued by the ld. AR before us. It is an established principle where an appeal presented with abnormal delay, beyond limitation, the assessee has to explain as to what is the reasonable cause, which really prevented the assessee to approach the appellate authority within time. As we discussed above, since the assessee failed to give sufficient cause for not filing the appeal in time, we hold that the assessee’s reasons for the inordinate delay cannot be interpreted liberally, we find no infirmity in the order passed by the ld. CIT(A) in rejecting the condonation petition filed by the assessee for the delay of 630 days in filing the appeal before the ld. CIT(A). Accordingly, the grounds raised by the assessee are dismissed. Printed from counselvise.com I.T.A. No.438/Chny/26 4 5. In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed. Order pronounced on 24th March, 2026 at Chennai. Sd/- Sd/- (INTURI RAMA RAO) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER (S.S. VISWANETHRA RAVI) JUDICIAL MEMBER Chennai, Dated, 24.03.2026 Vm/- आदेश की Ůितिलिप अŤेिषत/Copy to: 1. अपीलाथŎ/Appellant, 2.ŮȑथŎ/ Respondent, 3. आयकर आयुƅ/CIT, Chennai/Madurai/Coimbatore/Salem 4. िवभागीय Ůितिनिध/DR & 5. गाडŊ फाईल/GF. Printed from counselvise.com "