THE MAMATHA CONSUMERS COOPERATIVE CENTRAL STORES LIMITED,MANCHERIAL vs. INCOMETAX OFFICER, WARD-1, MANCHERIAL

The assessee has raised the following grounds :

The brief facts of the case are that the Learned Assessing Officer (“Ld.

Aggrieved by the order of Ld. AO, the assessee filed appeal before the Ld. CIT(A) with a delay of 105 days. The Ld. CIT(A), without condoning the delay dismissed the appeal of the assessee.

Aggrieved with the order of Ld. CIT(A), the assessee is in appeal before us. The Learned Authorised Representative (“Ld. AR”) submitted that, the assessee could not receive the notices sent by the Ld. AO due to change in their address. It was also submitted that, no e-mail corresponding to the notices was also sent to the assessee. In support of their claim, the Ld. AR placed on record copies of down loaded communications from the IT Portal, from which it was demonstrated that no specific recipient e-mail address was mentioned in the system generated e-mail. The Ld. AR further submitted that, although the assessment order was passed by Ld. AO on 30.03.2024, it was actually received by the assessee on 29.07.2024. By that time, the Manager who was managing the tax matters of the assessee was seriously ill. In support of their submission, the Ld. AR invited our attention to page no.5 of the order of Ld. CIT(A), where the petition for condonation of delay filed by the assessee has been captured by Ld. CIT(A). The Ld. AR also invited our attention to page nos.8 & 9 of the order of Ld. CIT(A) for A.Y. 2016-17, wherein the Ld. CIT(A) has captured the certificate issued by hospital regarding the illness of the Manager. Thus, it was submitted by Ld. AR that the delay was neither deliberate nor intentional and was caused due to bona fide and reasonable cause. The Ld. AR further submitted that, due to lack of proper opportunity, the assessee could not prosecute its case before the Ld. AO also due to non-service of notice. Therefore, the Ld. AR prayed before the bench to provide one more opportunity to the assessee to present their case on merits before the Ld. AO.

Per contra, the Learned Department Representative (“Ld. DR”) opposed the assessee's request and submitted that the assessee failed to comply with the notices issued by the Ld. AO and also did not file the appeal in time before the Ld. CIT(A). Therefore, the Ld. DR contended that, no further opportunity should be granted to the assessee.

We have heard the rival contentions and also gone through the record in the light of the submissions made by either side. We have gone through the petition for condonation of delay filed before the Ld. CIT(A) placed at page no.5 of the order of Ld. CIT(A) for A.Y. 2015-16 and also the medical certificates placed at page nos.8 & 9 of the order of Ld. CIT(A) for A.Y. 2016-17. On perusal of these documents, we are of the opinion that there was reasonable cause with the assessee for delay in filing of the appeal before the Ld. CIT(A). Accordingly, we condone the delay in filing the appeal before the Ld. CIT(A).

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

The issue involved in this appeal is similar to the issue involved in ITA no.1360/Hyd/2024. Therefore, our discussion and findings in shall apply mutatis mutandis in this appeal also.

To sum up, both the appeals of assessee are allowed for statistical purposes.