Loading judgment…
Facts
The assessee, a Cooperative Society, filed an appeal with a delay of 320 days against an ex-parte order passed by the CIT(A). The delay was attributed to a lack of knowledge among officials regarding the appeal process and the society being under the control of the West Bengal Government.
Held
The Tribunal condoned the 320-day delay, finding the assessee's explanation plausible and reasonable. It further remitted the case back to the CIT(A) to provide the assessee a proper opportunity of hearing and decide the matter on merits, as the previous order was ex-parte.
Key Issues
1. Condonation of delay in filing an appeal. 2. Validity of an ex-parte order passed by CIT(A) without affording reasonable opportunity of hearing to the assessee.
Sections Cited
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Cooperative Society was not aware of filing the appeal against the order of the first appellate authority and waited for the approval of the senior authority. It is stated that non filing of the appeal was due to lack of knowledge of the officials. Only after getting information that the appeal could have been filed against the order of the first appellate order, the Management had delegated the responsibility to its secretary in charge to take appropriate action and appeal was filed. It was in this process; there was delay of 320 days and prayed for condoning the delay. Ld Departmental Representative opposed the condonation petition.
After perusing the condonation petition and hearing the parties, I am of the considered view that the assessee is a cooperative society and under the control of West Bengal Government. The contention raised in the petition is found to be plausible and a reasonable cause. Hence, I condone the delay of 320 days and admit the appeal for adjudication.
At the outset, ld AR of the assessee submitted that the ld CIT(A) has passed the order exparte without affording reasonable opportunity of hearing to the assessee. Ld CIT(A) has not discussed the order on merit and upheld the addition on the ground of non-submission of documentary evidences in support of the claim. He requested the bench that one more opportunity be afforded to the assessee to substantiate its case with documentary evidences before the ld CIT(A). Ld D.R. supported the order of ld CIT(A).
P a g e 2 | 4 Assessment Year : 2017-18 Copy of the Order forwarded to : 1. The Appellant : Mudialy Fishermens Co.op. Society Ltd., Q. 167/1, Santoshpur Road, Kolkata- 700024 2. The Respondent : ACIT, Circle 10(1) Kolkata 3. The CIT(A)-,NFAC, Delhi 4. Pr.CIT,Kolkata 5. DR, ITAT, Kolkata 6. Guard file. //True Copy// By order