BHOJALRAM URBAN CO OP CREDIT SOCIETY LTD.,SURAT vs. ITO, WARD 3(3)(1), SURAT

On the facts and circumstances of the case as well as law on the subject, the Commissioner of Income Tax (A) NFAC has erred in confirming the action (A.Y.17-18) BU Co-O PCS.Ltd of Assessing Officer in disallowing of bad debt reserve of Rs.7,00,000/- bypassing corrigendum order although said disallowance was not made in the original assessment order.

At the outset, that the appeal filed late by 421 days. The Ld. AR of the assessee has filed an application for condonation of delay, supported by affidavit. The crux of the application lot delay is as under: "2. In this regard, it is submitted that the NFAC. Delhi has passed order on 15.12.2022 and but physical copy of the order passed in not received by us & was found later that the order was sent on email shreebhojalram@ barvaliya.in. It is further submitted that above email id is of the counsel who has taken the domain address for getting the communication from income tax department. However, his staff did not check the messages on the domain regularly. We came to know about the above order being passed by NFAC, Delhi when we asked counsel regarding the status of our pending appeal. My counsel immediately checked the income tax portal and came to know that order has already been passed in our case and demand has been generated. He downloaded the order immediately & informed us to file appeal against the same at the earliest. Hence, this appeal is immediately filed before Honourable Tribunal. My counsel advised us to file appeal with request for condonation of delay considering above bona fide facts. 3. We apologize for default on cur part & reque.it your kind & respectful honour to condone the delay in filing of appeal as the same is caused purely due to above bona fide reasons & we do not have any intention in disregarding the provisions of the statute. Therefore, it is kindly requested that, the delay in filing appeal may be condoned. "

We have considered the submission? made by Ld. AR on behalf of assessee and in absence of any contrary or material on record, the assessee is found to have a “sufficient cause” for delay in filing present appeal as narrated above in foregoing para. 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 ethers 1987 AIR 1353, 1987 2 SCC 387 (A.Y.17-18) BU Co-O PCS.Ltd 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 provision of section 253(5) and the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court, we take a judicious view and condone delay in this appeal. At the same time, as agreed by both sides and also having regard to the principle of natural justice and fair play, we deem it fit to give one more opportunity to assesses so that the assessee can represent his case before AO for a proper adjudication. Accordingly, we remand this matter back to the file of AO for a fresh adjudication after giving opportunity of hearing to the assessee, uninfluenced by his earlier order in any manner. The assessee is also directed to 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.

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced in under proviso to Rule 34 of the ITAT Rules, 1963 on 08/08/2025. Sd/- Sd/- (BIJAYANANDA PRUSETH) (DINESH MOHAN SINHA) लेखा सद�/Accountant Member �ाियक सद�/Judicial Member सूरत / Surat Dated: 08/08/2025 Dkp Outsourcing Sr.P.S*