SHREE PIPARDI SEVA SAHAKARI MANDALI LIMITED,SURENDRANAGAR vs. THE ITO WARD-2 (1) (2), RAJKOT

On the other hand, Ld. CIT-DR for the Revenue has raised objection on the prayer of assessee for remitting the matter back to the file of ld. CIT(A) and would submit that the assessee’s approach was casual during the appellate proceedings and the assessee has failed to comply with the notices issued by the ld. CIT(A). Thus, assessee does not deserve any further opportunity. Even if, the Bench is of the opinion

We have considered the submissions of both the parties and perused all the relevant material available on record. Now, before us, the Ld.AR of the assessee has explained the delay in filing appeal before Ld.CIT(A) by filing delaying submission in the application for condonation of delay. Therefore present appeal is, in fact, delayed by 1310 days before Ld.CIT(A). The Ld.AR of the assessee relied on the suo motu Writ Petition (Civil) No.3 of 2020 (original order dated 15.03.2020) vide final order dated 08.03.2021 cut-off date has been declared as 15.03.2021 meaning thereby that in computing the period of limitation for any suit, appeal, application or proceeding the period from 15.03.2020 till 14.03.2021 shall stand excluded” (Now extended up to 28.02.2022 as per SC order). Held that in cases where the limitation expiring during the period between March 15, 2020 till February 28,2022, the actual balance period of limitation remaining, all the persons shall have a limitation period of 90 days from March 01,2022. Further, where the actual balance period of limitation remaining w.e.f. March 01,2022 is greater than 90 days, that longer period shall apply. Ld. AR of the assessee submitted that time limit as prescribed in Supreme Court’s order given below expired on 27.05.2022 and the present appeal is filed on 11.04.2024 before Ld.CIT(A) is come to delay of 1310 days. However, Ld. CIT(A) did not condone the delay of 3 years from the actual date of assessment order. The assessee in Form-35 has mentioned that there is delay in filing appeal due to unavoidable reasons.

Brief facts of the case are that assessee is a co-operative Credit Society and engaged in business of providing credit facility to its members. During the year under consideration A.Y 2019-20 assessee’s turnover of Rs.20,93,390/- from sale of agricultural produce, interest income of Rs.1,03,82,761/- earned from credit facility provided to its members, dividend income of Rs.5,43,532/- and net profit of Rs.16,56,131/-. The assessee-company filed its return of income for AY.2019-20 on 28/10/2019 declaring nil income though assessee- company declared business income of Rs.17,86,131 after making disallowance of Rs.1,00,000/- on account of provisions for payment of gratuity not allowable u/s 40A(7) and Rs.30,000/- on account of any sum paid by the assessee an employer not allowable u/s 40A(9). The assessee ha claimed deduction u/s 80P of the income-tax to the tune of Rs.17,86,131/-. The assessee also filed tax audit report, Form-3CB/3CD on 28.10.2019 due to inadvertent mistake at the time of filing Form- 3CB/3CD, the deduction u/s 80P of Rs.17,86,131/- could not be reported in serial No.33 of Form-3CB which leads to variation in the claim made by the assessee in its ITR and Form-3CB. The AO has disallowed deduction claimed by the assessee while issuing intimation u/s 143(1) of the Act by stating the reason that “Deductions under Chapter-VIA

Aggrieved by the order of AO the assessee carried the matter before the ld. CIT(A). The ld. CIT(A) noted the following reasons: “4.1 On perusal of Form-35, it is seen that the intimation u/s 143(1) of the Act was passed on 06.03.2020, while the appeal was filed on 11.04.2024, which is beyond the statutory time limit provided for filing of the appeal. As per section 249(2)(c) the appeal shall be presented within 30 days of the following date on which the intimation of the order sought to be appealed against is served. However, the appellant filed appeal beyond the time limit with delay of more than 03 years.”

Further aggrieved by the order of Ld.CIT(A) assessee filed present appeal before the Tribunal. The Ld. AR of the assessee further submits that assessee filed rectification application u/s 154 of the Act 13.07.2020 and which was rejected by AO. Thereafter assessee contracted its consultant to file appeal before Tribunal and was under bona fide belief of the consultant had already filed appeal and till date appellant never got demand notice from the Department. The Ld. AR of the assessee stated that assessee came to know about outstanding demand for AY 2022-23 was issued on 10.03.2024. The assessee approached before new consultant, CA Bhumika Khadawala for filing appeal against impugned for AY 2022-23 who noticed that demand raised on account of disallowance claim of u/s 80P and non-filing of appeal by the previous consultant. On merit, the ld CIT(A) also held that the assessee is not interested in pursuing his appeal. Resultantly, the ITA 448/Rjt/2024 Sh. Pipardi Seva Shakari Mandli Ltd. addition made by Assessing Officer was confirmed. The Ld. AR of the assessee submits that there was reasonable cause for condonation of delay. In fact, the assessment was completed u/s 143(1) of the Act. The Ld. AR of the assessee submitted that dismissal the appeal of assessee in an ex parte proceeding by Ld.CIT(A) without giving fair and reasonable opportunity of hearing to the assessee. The ld. AR of the assessee prayed that the matter may be restored back to the file of ld. CIT(A) for deciding the issue on merit and she undertakes on behalf of assessee to be more vigilant in future in complying the notices issued by the ld. CIT(A). The Ld. AR for the assessee filed e-mail ie CABHUMIKA@MAIL.CA.IN for future correspondence through electronic mode.

So far as merits of the case is concerned, we find that Ld.CIT(A) has passed the order ex parte proceedings. Keeping in view the peculiar facts of the case, we find from perusal of the order of the ld. CIT(A) that the order of ld. CIT(A) is not as per mandate of Section 250(6) of the Act. 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 his case. Therefore, without delving much deeper into the merits of the case, in the interests of justice, we restore the matter back to the file of Ld. CIT(A) for de novo adjudication after affording sufficient opportunity of being heard to the assessee, who in turn, is also directed to contest his stand forthwith. Therefore, we deem it fit and proper to remit the matter back to the file of the Ld. CIT(A) to condone the delay in filing appeal before Ld.CIT(A) to admit the appeal and adjudicate the issue afresh on merits. The assessee is also directed to be more vigilant in future and not to take any adjournment without any valid reason. The assessee is also directed to submit all the documents, evidences and ITA 448/Rjt/2024 Sh. Pipardi Seva Shakari Mandli Ltd. replies as soon as possible without any further delay. In the result, grounds of appeal raised by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes only.

In the result, this appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes.