THE PUNJAB STATE COOPERATIVE AGRICULTURAL DEVELOPMENT BANK PENSION FUND,CHANDIGARH V. ITO WARD 2(1) CHANDIGARH, CHANDIGARH

ITA 841/CHANDI/2025

AI Insights

The case involves the Punjab State Cooperative Agricultural Development Bank Pension Fund, which appealed against the order of the Ld. CIT(A), Panaji, concerning the assessment year 2014-15. The assessee's return was processed under section 143(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, resulting in a demand for income tax. The assessee did not file an appeal within the prescribed time but sought condonation of delay after a significant lapse, citing reliance on advice from a tax consultant who filed a rectification application under section 154. The Ld. CIT(A) dismissed the appeal as time-barred, leading to the current appeal before the Tribunal.

• Counselvise Citation: [2026] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 847937 (ITAT-CHANDIGARH)
• Duration Of Justice: 9 month(s) 1 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 24-03-2026
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: Chandigarh
• Assessment Year: 2014-2015
• Appeal Filed On: 22-06-2025
• Laws Referred To: Income-tax Act, 1961
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: . VIVEK AGGARWAL LD
• Assessee Lawyers: B.K. NOHARIA
• Keywords: Condonation of delay; Corroborative evidences; Period of limitation; Time period of passing order
• Section: 154

Judgement Text

"IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “B” BENCH, CHANDIGARH PHYSICAL HEARING BEFORE HON’BLE SHRI LALIET KUMAR, JM AND HON’BLE SHRI KRINWANT SAHAY, AM आयकरअपीलसं./ ITA No.841/CHANDI/2025 (िनधाŊरणवषŊ / Assessment Year: 2014-15) The Punjab State Cooperative Agricultural Development Bank Pension Fund SCO 53-54, Sector -17 – B Chandigarh - 160017 बनाम/ Vs. ITO Ward 2 (1) Aayakar Bhawan, Sector – 17B Chandigarh - 160017 ˕ायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./PAN/GIR No. AABTT-6356-P (अपीलाथŎ/Appellant) : (ŮȑथŎ / Respondent) अपीलाथŎकीओरसे/ Appellant by : Sh. B.K. Noharia (CA) ŮȑथŎकीओरसे/Respondent by : Sh. Dr. Vivek Aggarwal (CIT) Ld. DR सुनवाईकीतारीख/Date of Hearing : 23-03-2026 घोषणाकीतारीख /Date of Pronouncement : 24-03-2026 आदेश / O R D E R Laliet Kumar, (Judicial Member) This appeal by the assessee is directed against the order passed by the Ld. CIT(A), Panaji u/s 250 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 dated 30.04.2025 pertaining to the assessment year 2014-15. 2. Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that the assessee is a pension fund of a cooperative institution. The return of income was Printed from counselvise.com processed u/s 143(1) of the Act on 10.03.2016, determining income at Rs. 8,15,09,010/- and raising a demand of Rs. 3,51,33,209/-. The assessee, however, did not file any appeal within the prescribed time. Subsequently, after a substantial lapse of time, the assessee preferred an appeal before the Ld. CIT(A) on 07.12.2021, which was delayed by about 2000 days i.e. more than five years from the date of service of the intimation. 3. During the appellate proceedings before the Ld. CIT(A), the assessee sought condonation of delay stating that upon receipt of the intimation on 18.05.2016, the matter was entrusted to its then tax advisor, who filed a rectification application u/s 154 and advised the assessee to await its outcome. It was further submitted that no follow-up action was taken by the said advisor, and the assessee remained unaware of the position, which ultimately resulted in the delay in filing the appeal. 4. The Ld. CIT(A), after considering the explanation, observed that the delay of about 2000 days was inordinate and the assessee had failed to substantiate its claim with any cogent evidence. It was further held that the reasons advanced were devoid of merit and did not constitute sufficient cause for condonation of delay. The Ld. CIT(A) accordingly declined to condone the delay and dismissed the appeal in limine without adjudicating the issues on merits. Printed from counselvise.com 5. Aggrieved, the assessee has preferred the present appeal before the Tribunal, raising grounds challenging the action of the Ld. CIT(A) did not condone the delay and did not decide the appeal on the merits. 6. The Ld. Authorised Representative (AR) reiterated the submissions made before the lower authorities and contended that the delay was neither intentional nor deliberate but occurred due to bona fide reliance on the advice of the tax consultant. It was submitted that the assessee had pursued the remedy of rectification in good faith and was under the bona fide belief that the issue would be resolved therein. It was thus pleaded that in the interest of substantial justice, the delay be condoned and the matter be restored for adjudication on merits. 7. Per contra, the Ld. Departmental Representative (DR) strongly supported the order of the Ld. CIT(A). It was submitted that the delay in the present case is highly excessive and remains unexplained by any credible material. The Ld. DR contended that the filing of a rectification application cannot be a substitute for filing an appeal within the prescribed limitation period, and the assessee cannot take shelter under the alleged negligence of its advisor. It was thus prayed that the order of the Ld. CIT(A) be upheld. 8. We have heard the rival submissions and perused the material available on record. The undisputed position is that there is a delay of approximately 2000 days in filing the appeal before the Ld. CIT(A). The only explanation offered by the assessee is that a rectification application Printed from counselvise.com was filed and that it was awaiting its disposal, coupled with an alleged lack of action on the part of its tax advisor. 9. In our considered opinion, the explanation furnished by the assessee does not constitute sufficient cause for condonation of such an extraordinary delay. It is a settled proposition that the remedy of appeal is independent of the remedy of rectification, and the pendency of rectification proceedings does not extend or suspend the period of limitation prescribed for filing an appeal. The assessee, being a corporate entity, was expected to act with due diligence and cannot absolve itself of its statutory obligations on account of alleged lapses of its advisor, particularly in the absence of any supporting evidence. 10. We also find merit in the observation that there is an increasing tendency on the part of litigants to approach appellate authorities in a casual manner, allowing statutory limitation periods to lapse and thereafter seeking condonation as a matter of course. Such practice cannot be countenanced, especially where the delay is inordinate and the explanation lacks bona fides. 11. The Hon’ble Courts have consistently held that while a liberal approach may be adopted in condoning reasonable delays, the same cannot be extended to cases involving gross negligence, inaction, or lack of bona fide. In the present case, the delay of more than five years Printed from counselvise.com remains largely unexplained and unsupported by any documentary evidence. 12. In view of the foregoing discussion, we find no infirmity in the order of the Ld. CIT(A) refused to condone the delay and dismissed the appeal as time-barred. Accordingly, the grounds raised by the assessee are dismissed. 13. In the result, the appeal of the assessee stands dismissed. Order pronounced on 24/03/2026. -Sd- -Sd- (KRINWANT SAHAY) (LALIET KUMAR) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER AS Dated: 24/03/2026 आदेश की Ůितिलिप अŤेिषत /Copy of the Order forwarded to : 1. अपीलाथŎ/Appellant 2. ŮȑथŎ/Respondent 3. आयकरआयुƅ/CIT 4. िवभागीयŮितिनिध/DR 5. गाडŊफाईल/GF ASSISTANT REGISTRAR ITAT CHANDIGARH Printed from counselvise.com "