KRISHI UTPADAN MANDI SAMITI, DATAGANJ ,BADAUN vs. ITO- 2(3), BADAUN

2 ITA.No.8047 & 8048/Del./2018 Krishi Utpadam Mandi Samiti, Badaun & Another. 2. We have considered the rival submissions and perused the findings of the authorities below.

In this appeal, the Ld. CIT(A) noted that there was a delay of 33 days in filing the appeal before him. It was contended by the assessee before the Ld. CIT(A) that it came to their knowledge from the notice of demand dated 22.08.2017 which was received on 29.08.2017 that demand of Rs.74,19,900/- has illegally been raised upon us by the Income Tax Department. The last date for filing of the appeal was 27.09.2017, but, the appeal is filed on 01.11.2017. There was a delay of 33 days which took place on the ground of the fact that notice was initially misplaced by their Accountant and the same escaped attention. The matter surfaced only when our Income Tax Counsel informed us about the demand reflecting on income tax e- filing website. The assessee, therefore, prayed that delay in filing the appeal may be condoned. The Ld. CIT(A), however, noted that the reason that appeal could not be filed on time as the demand notice were initially misplaced by the 3 ITA.No.8047 & 8048/Del./2018 Krishi Utpadam Mandi Samiti, Badaun & Another. Accountant and the same escaped attention is very feeble and weak. The assessee has however paid the prescribed fee for filing of the appeal within the period of limitation. Therefore, appeal of assessee were dismissed.

After considering the rival submissions, we are of the view that the Ld. CIT(A) should have condone the delay in filing the appeal before him. There is a nominal delay in filing the appeal. The assessee would not get any benefit if appeal is not filed within the period of limitation. The assessee paid the appeal fees within the period of limitation would show that assessee has taken steps diligently and wanted to file appeal against the assessment order. The reason given by the assessee is acceptable that delay was on account of misplacement of the notice by the Accountant. Thus, assessee was prevented by sufficient cause in not filing the appeal within the period of limitation. We, therefore, condone the delay in filing the appeal before the Ld. CIT(A). Accordingly, we set aside the impugned order and restore the appeal of assessee to the file of Ld. CIT(A) with a direction to re-decide the appeal of assessee on 4 ITA.No.8047 & 8048/Del./2018 Krishi Utpadam Mandi Samiti, Badaun & Another. merits in accordance with law, by giving reasonable, sufficient opportunity of being heard to the assessee.

In the result, ITA.No.8047/Del./2018 of the Assessee is allowed for statistical purposes.

Similarly, the present appeal is time barred by 176 days. The reason is same as have been considered in other appeal. Following the reasons for decision in ITA.No.8047/Del./2018, we condone the delay in filing the appeal before the Ld. CIT(A). We, accordingly, set aside the impugned order of the Ld. CIT(A) and restore the appeal to his file with a direction to re-decide the appeal of assessee on merits in accordance with law, by giving reasonable, sufficient opportunity of being heard to the assessee.

In the result, ITA.No.8048/Del./2018 of the Assessee is allowed for statistical purposes.

To sum-up, both the appeals of different Assessees are allowed for statistical purposes.