INDIRA GANDHI PANCHYATI RAJ & GRAMIN VIKAS SANSTHAN,JAIPUR vs. EXEMPTION WARD 1, JAIPUR

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, JAIPUR BENCHES, “A” BENCH, JAIPUR BEFORE SMT. ANNAPURNA GUPTA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER & SHRI KULDIP SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA Nos. 40 & 41/JPR/2026 (Assessment Years:2017-18 to 2018-19)

Indira Gandhi Panchyati Vs. Exemption Raj & Gramin Vikas Ward 1 Sansthan Jaipur Opp Commerce College JLN Marg Jaipur �थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./PAN/GIR No:AAAAI 9760 Q Appellant .. Respondent Appellant by : Sh. Anoop Bhatia, CA Respondent by : Sh. Ananad Swaroop, CIT Date of Hearing 05.08.2026 Date of Pronouncement 13.08.2026 O R D E R Per Annapurna Gupta, AM:- Both the present appeals have been filed by the same assessee against the order passed by the National Faceless Appeal Centre, NFAC, Delhi(hereinafter referred to as “Ld. CIT(E)”), dated

P a g e | 2 ITA No. 40 and 41/JPR/2026 Indira Gandhi Panchayati Raj & Gramin Vikas Sansthan 30.09.2025 and 05.09.2025under Section 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act”).

It was common ground that the issues involved in both the appeals wereidentical pertaining to addition /disallowances made of time deposits made by the assessee, payment made to contractors, and other additions to income, all on account of unsubstantiation of the same, vide ex parte assessment framed and confirmed by theLd.CIT(A) again ex parte the assessee. Therefore both the appeals were taken up for hearing together and are being disposed off by this common consolidated order.

Both the appeals are delayed for filing by 38 days. Ld. Counsel for the assessee has filed an application seeking condonation of delay, the contents of which are reproduced hereunder:-

I, RAMSWAROOP MEENA being the Principal Officer, of INDIRA GANDHI PANCHYATI RAJ & GRAMIN VIKAS SANSTHAN, humbly submit this request for condonation of delay in filing ITAT Appeal against the order passed by the ld. CIT(A) for the AY 2018-19 dated 30.09.2025 by confirming the addition made by ld. AO of Rs. 14,56,98,117/-. In this regard, I respectfully submit that the delay in filing the appeal was neither deliberate nor intentional. All notices and communications issued by the Income Tax Department were sent to the Mail ID of a member of the society who, due to limited familiarity with the income tax portal and appellate procedures, was not aware of the conclusion of the appellate proceedings and did not regularly monitor the said email communications. Consequently, the passing of the order by the Hon'ble Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) did not come to our knowledge within the prescribed time. The fact that the CIT(A) order had been passed came to light only when our counsel subsequently checked the income tax portal in the course of reviewing the case status. As a result, the appeal could not be filed within the stipulated limitation period due to reasons beyond our control.

P a g e | 3 ITA No. 40 and 41/JPR/2026 Indira Gandhi Panchayati Raj & Gramin Vikas Sansthan

Once the discrepancy came to our attention, we immediately took corrective steps and have now completed the appeal filing process. We assure you that there was no wilful negligence or intention to evade any compliance obligations. In light of the above circumstances, we earnestly request your kind consideration to condone the delay of 38 days in filing the appeals and accept our submission. We remain committed to ensuring timely compliance in the future We would be grateful for your positive consideration of our request. 2. Ld. Counsel for the assessee contended that the delay of 38 days is neither deliberate nor intentional; that the assessee had acted bona fide and with due diligence immediately upon acquiring knowledge of the order passed by the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals);thatthe delay occurred solely because the communications and notices issued through the Income Tax Portal were sent to the email ID of a member of the society who was not conversant with the technicalities of appellate proceedings and, therefore, failed to monitor the portal and email communications regularly. Thatimmediately upon becoming aware of the order, the assessee took prompt steps to file the present appeal without any further delay. 3. Ld. DR, on the other hand, vehemently opposed the condonation of delay contending that the reason brought out by the assessee reflected laxity on his part in pursuing the remedy of filing appeal and therefore the delay ought not to be condoned. 4. Having heard both the parties, we find the cause for the delay in 38 days of the filing of the present appeal before us being attributed to the ignorance regarding technicalities of appellate proceedings and e

P a g e | 4 ITA No. 40 and 41/JPR/2026 Indira Gandhi Panchayati Raj & Gramin Vikas Sansthan service of notices, of the member of the assessee society , whose email id was provided to the Ld.CIT(A) for communication. The assessee society being formed for panchayat and rural development , the reasons adduced so appear to be Bonafide and constituting sufficient cause . Moreover , the assessee has remained unheard both before the AO and the Ld.CIT(A) and its entire time deposits , payment made to contractors and other income totaling in all to Rs.14,56,98,117/- in AY 2018-19 and Rs.10,77,31,229/- in AY 2017-18 have been added to its income . 5. The law governing condonation of delay is now well settled. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Collector, Land Acquisition, Anantnag &Anr. v. Mst. Katiji& Ors.(1987) 167 ITR 471 (SC) laid down that the expression "sufficient cause" occurring in the Limitation Act should receive a liberal construction so as to advance substantial justice. The Court held that when substantial justice and technical considerations are pitted against each other, the cause of substantial justice deserves to be preferred. The Court further observed that there is no presumption that delay is deliberate or occasioned on account of culpable negligence or mala fides and that ordinarily a litigant does not stand to benefit by lodging an appeal belatedly. 6. The principles governing the exercise of discretion in condonation matters were comprehensively summarized by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Esha Bhattacharjee v. Managing Committee of Raghunathpur Nafar Academy & Ors.(2013) 12 SCC 649. The Court held that while a liberal and justice-oriented approach should be

P a g e | 5 ITA No. 40 and 41/JPR/2026 Indira Gandhi Panchayati Raj & Gramin Vikas Sansthan adopted, the explanation must be bona fide, reasonable and free from negligence or lack of due diligence. The discretion to condone delay is to be exercised on the facts of each case so as to advance substantial justice. 7. Accordingly, noting the assessee to have adduced sufficient cause and further in the interest of justice the delay of 38 days in filing the present appeal is condoned. The appeal is admitted for adjudication on merits. Ordered accordingly. 8. As pointed out and noted above, both the assessment order as well as Ld. CIT(A) order are ex parte. Ld. Counsel for the assessee has admitted that due to lapses in the administration of the assessee-society, the notices issued both by the AO and the Ld. CIT(A) could not be responded to. He pleaded that the matter be restored back to the AO for consideration afresh, since huge additions totaling Rs.14,56,98,117/- in AY 2018-19 and Rs.10,77,31,229/- in AY 2017-18 have been made to the income of the assessee without being heard at all, and therefore, the facts relating to the additions need to be brought to the notice of the Lower Authorities for proper adjudication. He pointed out that the additions made in both the orders pertain to time deposits made by the assessee, the source of which allegedly remained unexplained and also the entire payment made to Contractors was disallowed. Addition he pointed out was also made of interest other than interest earned on securities. 9. Considering the averments of the ld. Counsel for the assessee as above, not controverted by the Revenue, in the interest of justice we

P a g e | 6 ITA No. 40 and 41/JPR/2026 Indira Gandhi Panchayati Raj & Gramin Vikas Sansthan consider it fit to restore the issue back to the file of AO for assessment afresh. However, noting the laxity on the part of the assessee in participating in the proceedings both before the AO and Ld. CIT(A) it is apt to impose cost on the assessee and accordingly a cost of Rs.5,000/- each is imposed on the assessee in both the appeals to be deposited in Prime Minister’s National Relief Fund. The Ld. AO is directed to take up the issues only after confirming the deposit of the cost levied by us as directed above. 10. Both the appeals are restored back to the file of the AO for consideration afresh, after giving due opportunity of hearing to the assessee. 11. In effect, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes.

Order pronounced in the Open Court on 13.08.2026

Sd/- Sd/- (Kuldip Singh) (Annapurna Gupta) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Dated 13.08.2026 Mittali, Sr. PS Copy forwarded to: 1. Appellant 2. Respondent 3. CIT 4. CIT(Appeals) 5. DR: ITAT

P a g e | 7 ITA No. 40 and 41/JPR/2026 Indira Gandhi Panchayati Raj & Gramin Vikas Sansthan

By Order, Asst. Registrar ITAT, Jaipur