VEHEVAL MILK PRODUCER CO OPERATIVE SOCIETY LTD,SURAT vs. DCIT CIRCLE 2(1)(1), SURAT

Aggrieved by the order of CIT(A), the assessee filed appeal before the Tribunal. The learned Authorized Representative (ld. AR) of the /AY.2020-21 Vaheval Milk Producer Co-Op. Society Ltd. assessee filed a small paper book incorporating grievance made in the Income Tax portal and submitted that in Form No.35, at column no.11, the assessee had stated as follows: “So computation sheet was uploaded but assessment order was not. Grievance made at e-proceeding portal for non-availability of assessment order on 21/03/2023. Then assessment order was available at E-proceeding portal.” He submitted that the reasons for the delay was mentioned at para 11 of the statement of facts. He submitted that the assessment order was not uploaded even on 21.03.2023. As soon as the same was uploaded, copy of the assessment order was downloaded and appeal was filed on 20.04.2022, which was within the time permissible u/s 249(3) of the Act. He fairly admitted that in the column no.14, it was submitted that there was no delay in filing appeal. However, the same was an inadvertent mistake because the reasons for delay had already been mentioned in the statement of facts. He requested that another opportunity may be given to the assessee in the interest of justice.

On the other hand, learned Senior Departmental Representative (ld. Sr. DR) of the revenue submitted that the Bench may decide the matter as deemed proper.

We have heard both the parties and perused the materials available on record. The CIT(A) did not condone the delay by stating that no reason whatsoever was given by the appellant for delay in filling /AY.2020-21 Vaheval Milk Producer Co-Op. Society Ltd. appeal. Since the appeal was dismissed at the threshold, no findings or decision was given on the merits of the case. The ld. AR submitted that the CIT(A) has not considered the reasons given by the assessee for delay in filing the appeal. He submitted that in Form No.35, the assessee, at column no.11, has duly mentioned that the assessment order was not uploaded even on 21.03.2023. Therefore, the delay was neither deliberate nor intentional. It was beyond the control of the appellant. After receipt of the order, appellant has filed the appeal within the time allowed u/s 249(2) of the Act. We find that the CIT(A) has not considered the above request of the assessee to condone the delay by stating that assessee had not filed any affidavit or made any submission for condonation of delay. Perusal of the facts mentioned above reveals that the assessee had in fact given the reasons for delay in filing appeal. The reasons given was not at all considered by the CIT(A). Therefore, we deem it proper to set aside the order of CIT(A) and restore the matter to his file to consider the reasons for condonation of delay. The CIT(A) may seek further clarification or details if it is warranted. If he is satisfied that appellant had sufficient cause for not presenting the appeal within the meaning of section 249(3) of the Act, he may admit the appeal and decide the case on merit. For statistical purpose, the appeal of the assessee is allowed.