Loading judgment…
Facts
The assessee's appeal for AY 2018-19 was dismissed by the Ld. CIT(A) due to a 74-day delay in filing, without adjudicating the merits. The assessee, a cooperative society from a small village, claimed lack of technical awareness as the reason for the delay, having become aware of the assessment order only upon receiving the demand notice.
Held
The ITAT found the assessee's explanation of residing in a small village and lacking technical awareness to be a sufficient cause for the delay. Consequently, the tribunal condoned the delay and remitted the matter back to the Ld. CIT(A) for fresh adjudication on merits.
Key Issues
The key legal issue was whether the assessee had shown 'sufficient cause' for the delay in filing the appeal before the Ld. CIT(A) under Section 249(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, read with Section 5 of The Limitation Act.
Sections Cited
Section 144, Section 144B, Section 249(2), Section 249(3), Section 5 of The Limitation Act
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, RAJKOT BENCH, RAJKOT
Before: DR. ARJUN LAL SAINI & DR. DINESH MOHAN SINHA
Assessment Year: 2018-19 Shree Pindara Seva Sahkari Mandali Income Tax Officer, wd-1, बनाम Ltd. At Pindara, Taluka Kalyanpur, Dwarka-361335 Devbhumi Dwarka (Guj) -361315 Vs. PAN No. : AAJAS7145N (अपीलाथ�/Appellant) : (��यथ�/Respondent) �नधा�रती क� ओर से/Assessee by : Shri Shreyash Sheth, Ld. AR राज�व क� ओर से/Revenue by : Shri Abhimanyu Singh Yadav, Ld.Sr.DR सुनवाई क� तार�ख /Date of Hearing : 17/11/2025 घोषणा क� तार�ख /Date of Pronouncement : 16/01/2026 ORDER Per, Dr. Dinesh Mohan Sinha, JM:
Captioned appeal filed by the assessee, pertaining to Assessment Year (AY) 2018-19, is directed against the order passed by the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax(Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi [in short "the Ld. CIT(A)/NFAC"], dated 09.01.2025, which in turn arises out of an assessment order passed by Assessing Officer (in short 'the AO-CPC") u/s 144 r.w.s. 144B of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act"), vide order dated 28.04.2021.
At the outset, Learned Counsel of the assessee submitted that there was delay in filing the appeal for 74 days, before Ld. CIT(A). The assessee filed the petition Sh. Pindara Seva Sahkari Mandali Ltd. for condonation of delay before the Ld. CIT(A) and explained the cause for the delay, however, despite of this, the ld. CIT(A) did not condone the delay and dismiss the appeal of the assessee, without adjudicating the various issues, raised by the assessee, on merit. That is, the ld. CIT(A) did not adjudicate the assessee's appeal, on merit. The Learned Counsel, therefore, prayed the Bench that delay may kindly be condoned and matter, may be remitted back to the file of the ld. CIT(A) for fresh adjudication, on merit.
On the other hand, Learned Sr. DR for revenue relied on the order of the Ld.CIT(A).
We have considered the rival submissions of both the parties and perused the relevant finding given in the impugned order of Id. CIT(A). We find that during the appellate proceedings, the assessee submitted the following reasons, for condonation of delay:
"On the facts and circumstances of the case, and in view of the position of law applicable on the given facts, I am satisfied that the appeal has not been presented within the period prescribed under section 249(2) of the Act, i.e. thirty days from the date of service of the notice of demand relating to the assessment order. I am also satisfied that the appellant has not been able to show any "sufficient cause" for not presenting the appeal within the said prescribed period, within the meaning of section 249(3) of the Act, read with section 5 of The Limitation Act. Accordingly, the appeal is not admitted for adjudication on merits"
Page 2 of Sh. Pindara Seva Sahkari Mandali Ltd. We note that findings of the Ld. CIT(A) “On the facts and circumstances of the case, and in view of the position of law applicable on the given facts, I am satisfied that the appeal has not been presented within the period prescribed under section 249(2) of the Act, i.e. thirty days from the date of service of the notice of demand relating to the assessment order. I am also satisfied that the appellant has not been able to show any "sufficient cause" for not presenting the appeal within the said prescribed period, within the meaning of section 249(3) of the Act, read with section 5 of The Limitation Act. Accordingly, the appeal is not admitted for adjudication on merits.”
We note that where a case has been presented in the court beyond limitation, the assessee has to explain the court as to what was the" sufficient cause" which means an adequate and enough reason which prevented him to approach the court within limitation. We note that the assessee has explained the sufficient cause stating that assessee was residing at a small Village and did not have any technical awareness about web-site & email etc. The assessee came to know about assessment order, when demand notice and challan was received from Jurisdictional Income Tax Officer. We note that where a case has been presented in the court beyond limitation, the assessee has to explain to the court as to what was the" sufficient cause" which means an adequate and enough reason which prevented him to approach the court within limitation. In the assessee's case under consideration, the assessee was active and explained the sufficient cause stating that assessee was residing at a small Village and did not have any technical awareness for email etc. The assessee come to know about assessment order, when demand notice and challan was received from Jurisdictional Income Tax Officer. Then after, the assessee filed the appeal before the ld. CIT(A) immediate. Therefore, we find that explanation was provided by the assessee, which can be treated as a sufficient or good reason for condoning the delay of 339 days. A perusal of the reasons for condonation of delay, submitted by the assessee before Page 3 of Sh. Pindara Seva Sahkari Mandali Ltd. the ld. CIT(A), gives us an impression of existence of mitigating circumstances to enable us to exercise our discretion in favour of the assessee. Accordingly, the delay is condoned before ld. CIT (A), and matter is restored back to the file of Ld. CIT(A) for fresh adjudication.
In the result, the appeal of the assessee, is allowed for statical purpose.