SHRI CHOSALA SEVA SAHKARI MANDLI LI,BHAVNAGAR vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 1(2), BHAVNAGAR, BHAVNAGAR

Learned AR for the assessee, at the outset, submitted that the assessment order in this case was passed ex parte under Section 144 of the Act. He also submitted that before the learned CIT(A), there was a delay of 958 days in filing appeal. The Ld. AR further submitted that the Assessee is a co-operative society in a rural village and they have restrictive access to tax experts. The Ld. AR for the assessee further submitted that the assessee has a fair case on merits and also (Assessment Year: 2018-19 - 3– submitted that the assessee may be given an opportunity to present his case before the Ld. Assessing Officer. He further submitted that the Assessee is a cooperative society and the persons responsible for management of the Assessee are not highly literate and are dependent upon their consultant. The Assessee was under the bona fide belief that the consultant had done the needful pursuant to the passing of the Assessment Order; however, the Assessee, somewhere in the month of October 2025, when it received the demand notice dated 22.09.2025, became aware that no appeal had been preferred before the Ld. CIT(A). Thereafter, the needful was done and, in the present case, a delay of 958 days occurred before the Ld. CIT(A).

Ld. Departmental Representative, on the other hand, submitted that the Assessee was not diligent in pursuing its remedies and, therefore, the impugned order passed by the Ld. CIT(A) cannot be faulted. He has submitted that the Assessee cannot be given the benefit of its own wrongdoing.

We have heard the parties and perused the material on record. The impugned order records the explanation of the Assessee regarding its delay in filing of the appeal at para 2.3 of the impugned order, which is reproduced hereinbelow: “… ii. The of appellant acknowledges that there is delay approximately 32 months in filing the appeal. It is submitted that the person responsible for management of the appellant society are not highly literate and are grossly dependent upon their consultant. They were under a bonafide belief that who was assigned the job of carrying out necessary compliance would have submitted the requested data however when the appellant Bank Account Attachment received the demand notice dated 22.09.2025 somewhere in the month of October 2025, it is realized that despite the order has been passed long back but no appeal has been fled so far. The (Assessment Year: 2018-19 - 4– appellant further submits that the appellant is situated at Village Chosala Ta-Gadhda, Dist- Botad. This village is approximately 48 Kms from Botad and we have very restricted access of the tax experts. Thus the delay in post receipt of notice in October till now is attributable to identification of consultants and discussion with consultant with various solutions available as negotiation on their commercials.

In the case of Collector, Land Acquisition, Anantnag and another Versus Mst. Katiji and Others [167 ITR 471 (SC)], the (Assessment Year: 2018-19 - 5– Hon’ble Supreme Court had, while examining the issue of condonation of delay in filing appeal, observed that:

It is not disputed that the Assessee is a cooperative society functioning in a rural village and the persons responsible for management are not well-versed with the tax laws. It is the case of the Assessee that the person deputed for doing the needful in the matter had not filed the appeal, and this fact became known to the Assessee only in the month of October 2025. It is also a matter of record that there was no effective representation by the Assessee either before the Ld. AO or before the Ld. CIT(A), and the Ld. CIT(A) has not decided the (Assessment Year: 2018-19 - 6– additions on merits. In such circumstances, applying the principle laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Mst. Katiji (supra), we are of the considered view that the interests of justice will be well served, if the Assessee be given an opportunity to present his case before the Ld. AO. So far as the negligence on the part of the assessee in not properly representing his case before the lower authorities is concerned, the Assessee can be burdened with reasonable costs of Rs.10000/- to be deposited in the Prime Minister’s National Relief Fund. The Assessee will deposit the aforesaid cost amount within 60 days from the date of receipt of copy of this order and will produce the proof of such deposit before the Ld. AO. Subject to the fulfilment of the aforesaid condition, the delay in filing the present appeal is hereby condoned, the impugned order of the CIT(A) is set-aside and the matter is restored to the file of the AO. The AO will pass the assessment order afresh after giving due opportunity to the assessee. The Assessee shall submit all relevant materials and supporting documents before the Ld. CIT(A) in support of its case and shall comply with the notices issued by the Revenue Authorities without seeking unnecessary adjournments.

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is treated as allowed for statistical purposes

""थ"/ The Respondent. 3. संबंिधतआयकरआयु"/ Concerned CIT 4. आयकरआयु"(अपील) /The CIT(A)- 5. िवभागीय"ितिनिध, आयकरअपीलीयअिधकरण, अहमदाबाद/ DR, ITAT, Ahmedabad गाड"फाईल /Guard file. 6. आदेशानुसार/ BY ORDER,सहायकपंजीकार (Dy./Asstt.