PRATHMIK KRSHI SHAK SAHKARI SANSTHA MARYADIT KHATEDAKALA,KHATEDAKALA vs. CIT, BHOPAL
No AI summary yet for this case.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, INDORE BENCH, INDORE
Before: SHRI B.M. BIYANI & SHRI PARESH M. JOSHI
आदेश/ O R D E R
Per B.M. Biyani, A.M.:
Feeling aggrieved by order of first-appeal dated 16.04.2024 passed by learned Commissioner of Income-Tax (Appeals)-NFAC, Delhi [“CIT(A)”] which in turn arises out of assessment-order dated 17.03.2023 passed by learned Assessment Unit of Income-tax Department [“AO”] u/s 147 r.w.s. 144 & 144B of Income-tax Act, 1961 [“the Act”] for Assessment-Year [“AY”] 2018-19, the assessee has filed this appeal on the grounds mentioned in Appeal Memo (Form No. 36).
Page 1 of 8
Prathmik Krshi Shak Sahkari Sanstha Maryadit Khatedakala ITA No. 702/Ind/2024 - AY 2018-19
Ld. AR for assessee submitted that the impugned order was passed on
16.04.2024 but the same came to the knowledge of assessee on 17.07.2024
and therefore the assessee has mentioned the “date of service” as
“17.07.2024” in Form No. 36. He submitted that the assessee filed appeal on
18.09.2024 which is within the statutory time period but, however, as a
matter of abundant caution, the assessee has also filed a condonation-
application supported by an affidavit. The assessee’s application is scanned
and re-produced below:
Page 2 of 8
Prathmik Krshi Shak Sahkari Sanstha Maryadit Khatedakala ITA No. 702/Ind/2024 - AY 2018-19
Page 3 of 8
Prathmik Krshi Shak Sahkari Sanstha Maryadit Khatedakala ITA No. 702/Ind/2024 - AY 2018-19
Page 4 of 8
Prathmik Krshi Shak Sahkari Sanstha Maryadit Khatedakala ITA No. 702/Ind/2024 - AY 2018-19
Ld. AR iterated the explanation given by assessee in the above
application and submitted that due to non-receipt of notices of hearing as
well as impugned order, the assessee could not represent its case before
CIT(A) and there occurred delay of about 3 months in filing this appeal. Ld.
Page 5 of 8
Prathmik Krshi Shak Sahkari Sanstha Maryadit Khatedakala ITA No. 702/Ind/2024 - AY 2018-19
AR very humbly submitted that there is no lethargy, negligence, mala fide
intention or ulterior motive of assessee in making delay and the assessee
does not stand to derive any benefit because of delay. He further submitted
that the sole reason of delay is as explained in the condonation-application.
He submitted that there is “sufficient cause” for delay and hence the delay
should be condoned.
Ld. DR for Revenue left the matter to the wisdom of Bench without
raising any objection.
We have considered the explanation advanced by assessee and in
absence of any contrary fact or material on record, the assessee is found to
have a “sufficient cause” for delay in filing present appeal. We find that
section 253(5) of the Act empowers the ITAT to admit an appeal after expiry
of prescribed time, if there is a “sufficient cause” for not presenting appeal
within prescribed time. It is also a settled position by Hon’ble Supreme
Court in Collector, Land Acquisition Vs Mst. Katiji and others 1987 AIR
1353, 1987 2 SCC 387 that whenever substantial justice and technical
considerations are opposed to each other, the cause of substantial justice
must be preferred by adopting a justice-oriented approach. Thus, taking into
account the facts of case, the provision of section 253(5) and the decision of
Hon’ble Supreme Court, we take a judicious view, condone delay, admit
appeal and proceed with hearing.
Page 6 of 8
Prathmik Krshi Shak Sahkari Sanstha Maryadit Khatedakala ITA No. 702/Ind/2024 - AY 2018-19
Ld. AR next submitted that the orders of both of the lower authorities
are ex-parte. He referred a table noted by AO in Para No. 2 titled “Details of
Opportunities given” and submitted that in Column No. 4 of the table titled
“assessee received (yes/no)”, the AO has himself mentioned “No” against all
notices issued by AO, thus the AO himself admits that none of the notices
sent by him was received by assessee. Ld. AR submitted that regardless of
such mention by AO, it is a fact that none of the notices sent by AO was
received by assessee and therefore the assessee could not make
representation before AO which has led to passing of assessment-order u/s
Ld. AR requested that in present case, it would be most appropriate to
remand this matter to the file of AO for a fresh adjudication. Ld. AR
acknowledges that the assessee is ready and willing to make a proper
representation before AO if an opportunity is given and hence prays that the
present matter should be remanded to AO.
Ld. DR for revenue agrees with the prayer of Ld. AR but makes a
request to direct the assessee to represent his case before AO and do not
seek unnecessary adjournments.
Considering above submissions of parties; having regard to the
principle of natural justice and also bearing in mind that no prejudice would
be caused to revenue if the present matter is restored at the level of AO, we
remand this matter back to the file of AO for adjudication afresh, at the risk
and responsibility of assessee. The AO shall give necessary opportunity of
hearing to assessee and pass an appropriate order uninfluenced by his
Page 7 of 8
Prathmik Krshi Shak Sahkari Sanstha Maryadit Khatedakala ITA No. 702/Ind/2024 - AY 2018-19
earlier order. The assessee is also directed to remain vigilant and ensure
participation in the hearings as may be fixed by AO and do not seek
unnecessary adjournments failing which the AO shall be at liberty to pass
appropriate order in accordance with law. Ordered accordingly.
Resultantly, this appeal is allowed for statistical purpose.
Order pronounced in open court on 28/07/2025
Sd/- Sd/-
(PARESH M. JOSHI) (B.M. BIYANI) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER
Indore
िदनांक/Dated : 28/07/2025
Patel/Sr. PS Copies to: (1) The appellant (2) The respondent (3) CIT (4) CIT(A) (5) Departmental Representative (6) Guard File By order UE COPYSr. Private Secretary Income Tax Appellate Tribunal Indore Bench, Indore
Page 8 of 8
