NEW NAVHIND MULTIPURPOSE MULTISTATE CO - OPERATIVE SOCIETY,BELAGAVI vs. ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE - 1, BELAGAUM

Registry has pointed out that the appeal is barred by limitation as the assessee has filed the appeal with a delay of 87 days. Assessee has filed affidavit explaining the reasons for delay. On due consideration of the said reasons, we find that ‘reasonable cause’ prevented the assessee from filing the appeal within the stipulated time limit. We find that the delay

Facts in brief are that assessee is a Cooperative Society engaged in the business of banking and providing credit facilities to its Members. Survey action u/s.133A of the Act took place at the business premises of assessee where the assessee admitted Rs.1,97,07,151/- as additional income but the assessee has offered only income of Rs.64,07,151/-. Case selected for scrutiny under CASS for Large deduction under Chapter VIA deduction, high value receipt of cash shown from third parties in response date, large deduction claimed u/s.57, undisclosed income reported in ITBA AIMS portal and large value cash deposits during the period of demonetization. After considering the submissions and the details furnished by the assessee, ld. Assessing Officer concluded the assessment making additions/disallowances at Rs.1,60,43,890/-.

Aggrieved assessee preferred appeal before ld.CIT(A) but with delay of 1774 days. Ld.CIT(A) dismissed the appeal in limine without condoning the delay.

At the outset, ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted that ld.CIT(A) dismissed the appeal in limine, without condoning the delay of 1774 days. He submitted that the assessee society is in the hands of citizens who are unaware of the income tax law

There is no dispute that u/s.253(5) of the Act, the Tribunal may admit an appeal filed beyond the period of limitation where it is satisfied that there exists a ‘sufficient cause’ on the part of the assessee for not presenting the appeal within the prescribed time.

The important point is as to whether such a delay deserves condonation. At this stage, we take note of the judgment of the Hon’ble Bombay High Court in Vijay Vishin Meghani Vs. DCIT & Anr (2017) 398 ITR 250 (Bom) wherein the Hon’ble Court held that none should be deprived of an adjudication on merits unless it is found that the litigant deliberately delayed the filing of appeal. In that case, delay of 2984 days crept in due to improper legal advice. Relying on Concord of India Ins. Co. Limited VS Nirmala Devi (1979) 118 ITR 507 (SC), the Hon’ble jurisdictional High Court condoned the delay.

We have carefully examined the reasons for condonation of delay as well as the explanation tendered by the assessee in support thereof. Upon a comprehensive appraisal of the facts, we find that the delay cannot be attributed either to deliberate inaction or to any lack of bona fides on the part of the assessee. The circumstances explained demonstrate that the default occurred due to reasons beyond the assessee's control and not on account of any negligence, or want of diligence. In our considered view, assessee has satisfactorily established the existence of "sufficient cause" for the delay in preferring the appeal before the First Appellate Authority. Adopting justice oriented approach, we condone the delay before ld.CIT(A).

Since ld.CIT(A) has not decided the issues on merits, considering the factual matrix in the instant appeal and the prayer made by ld. Counsel for the assessee, deem it appropriate to afford one more opportunity to the assessee to substantiate its case. In view thereof and without dwelling into merits of the case, the issues raised in the instant appeal are remitted back to the file of ld.CIT(A) for denovo adjudication. Needless to mention that in the set aside proceedings ld.CIT(A) shall provide reasonable opportunity of hearing to the assessee and pass speaking order as contemplated u/s.250(6) of the Act. Assessee is directed to update email and contact detail on the ITBA portal. Assessee is also directed to remain vigilant and not to take adjournment unless otherwise required for reasonable cause, failing which the ld.CIT(A) shall be free to proceed in accordance with law. Impugned order of ld. CIT(A)/NFAC is set aside and effective grounds of appeal raised by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes.

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

The Pr. CIT concerned. विभ गीय प्रतितनधि, आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण, Panaji 4. ‘DB’ Bench / DR, ITAT, Panaji ‘DB’ Bench ग र्ड फ़ इल / Guard File. 5. आिेश नुस र / BY ORDER,