KARJALA SEVA SAHKARI MANDLI LIMITED ,AMRELI vs. THE ITO WARD-3(1)(4), RAJKOT-AMRELI, RAJKOT

The appeal filed by the assessee for Assessment Year 2018-19, is barred by limitation by 240 days. The assessee has moved a petition requesting the Bench to condone the delay. Learned Counsel for the assessee, explains the reasons of delay stating that all notices issued during the course of CIT(A) proceedings, were sent on email address: "karjalassmandali@gmail.com" (as reflected in E-filing portal), which was of Appellant-society. However, since the appellant resides in a small town called Karjala of Amreli District, its employees/manager/chairman are not aware about the functioning of email due to poor infrastructure facilities and hence they do not check the emails regularly due to which all notices issued on the aforesaid e-mail id went unnoticed and the appellant-society could not forward the same to its tax consultant for compliance thereof. Thus, the appellant was not aware about notices issued by the Ld. CIT(A) and also about the passing of order u/s 250 of the Act dated 24-08-2024. The email id provided in E-filing Portal was of its tax consultant i.e. "karjalassmandali@abkothiya.com". However, all notices u/s 250 were sent on email id of the Society i.e. "karjalassmandali@gmail.com". Therefore, tax consultant of the assessee was also not aware about passing the order by ld. CIT(A). Thereafter when the tax consultant of the appellant logged into E-filing portal sometime in June, 2025, he found that order u/s 250 of the Act has already been passed on 24/08/2024. Thereafter, the appellant was advised by his tax consultant to approach a Tribunal tax practitioner. Thereafter it took quite some time in the process to decide and appoint a tax Counsel appearing before Income-tax Appellate Tribunal. In this process, the delay of 240 days in filing the appeal before this Tribunal has resulted, which may kindly be condoned in the interest of justice.

However, ld. Senior DR for the revenue argued that while deciding the prayer for condonation of delay, the court/appellate authority cannot ignore or give a go-by to the basic principle that the burden to prove the existence of sufficient cause is always on the assessee, and there is no presumption that the delay occasioned in the filing of the appeal is always bona fide and the condonation of delay is not the matter of right. In the instant case, the assessee failed to prove the sufficient cause, therefore, delay should not be condoned.

We have heard both the parties on this preliminary issue. We note that the email id, which was registered in the e-filing portal, relates to tax consultant, of the assessee, however notices were issued by the ld. CIT(A) on email id of the assessee himself. The assessee could not access its email- id due to poor infrastructural facilities and the fact that assessee resides in a remote village where internet facilities are not available. When the another next tax consultant logged into the e-filing of the portal, then assessee came to know about passing order of the ld. CIT(A). We note that provisions of law have to be adhered strictly and that one cannot be allowed to act in leisure and make a mockery of enacted law, because law & provisions are laid down to benefit both sides of litigation. Be that as it may, we have to do justice and the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Collector, Land Acquisition vs Mst. Katiji and others, reported in 167 ITR 471, (1988 SC 897) (7) observes ....

“4. When substantial justice and technical considerations are pitted against each other, cause of substantial justice deserves to be preferred for the other side cannot claim to have vested right in injustice being done because of a non- deliberate delay.” When we weigh these two aspects then the side of justice becomes heavier and casts a duty on us to deliver justice. We note that the reasons given in A.Y. 2018-19 Karjala Seva Sahkari Mandli Ltd. the affidavit for condonation of delay were convincing and these reasons would constitute reasonable and sufficient cause for the delay in filing this appeal. Having heard both the parties and after having gone through the affidavit as well the delay condonation, application, We, are of the considered opinion that in the interest of justice, the delay deserves to be condoned. We, accordingly, condone the delay.

On merit, at the outset itself, the ld. Counsel for the assessee assailed the impugned order by contending that the assessee could not represent his case before Ld. CIT(A) and the order being an ex-parte order, stood vitiated on account of violation of principle of natural justice. The Ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted that notices were not served on the assessee during the assessment proceeding. On appeal, before the Ld. CIT(A), the assessee could not appear because again notices were not served on the assessee, therefore, the Ld. CIT(A) has passed the ex-parte order. Hence, the Ld. Counsel prayed the Bench that now assessee wants to submit some additional documents and evidences, before lower authorities, therefore, matter may be restored back to the file of the assessing officer for fresh adjudication.

On the other hand, the ld. Sr-DR for the revenue submitted that assessee was negligent in its approach and did not appear before the lower authorities, and wasted the time and resources of the lower authorities, therefore a cost should be imposed on the assessee, on account of its non- compliance attitude of the assessee.

We have heard both the parties and carefully gone through the submission put forth on behalf of the assessee along with the documents A.Y. 2018-19 Karjala Seva Sahkari Mandli Ltd. furnished and the case laws relied upon, and perused the fact of the case including the findings of the ld. CIT(A) and other materials brought on record. We note that in the assessee’s case under consideration, the assessment was carried out u/s 147 r.w.s.144 of the Act and the impugned order passed by the ld. CIT(A), is an ex- parte order and non-speaking order, therefore, we do not wish to make any comments on the merits of the grounds raised by the assessee. Considering the above facts, We note that assessee has not given sufficient opportunity of being heard and could not plead its case successfully before the ld. CIT(A). We note that the ld. CIT(A) did not discuss the assessee’s case on merits based on the material available before him hence it is a violation of principle of natural justice. We note that it is settled law that principles of natural justice and fair play require that the affected party is granted sufficient opportunity of being heard to contest its case. However, on account of non-compliance attitude of the assessee, we impose a cost of Rs.500/- (Rupes five hundred only) on the assessee which should be deposited in the Prime Minister National Relief Fund within 3 weeks from receipt of this order. If the assessee makes default in making the payment of cost then the consequential proceedings would be deemed, as vacation of our instant remand order. For the reasons given above, we are of the view that the order of the CIT(A) on this issue requires to be set aside and the issue needs to be looked into afresh by the assessing officer in the light of the observations as set out above. We hold and direct accordingly. The assessing officer will afford opportunity of being heard to the assessee before deciding the issue. The assessee will also be at liberty to let in further evidence to substantiate its case. For statistical purpose, the appeal of the assessee is treated, as allowed.