DOULATPURA DUGDH UTPADAK SAHKARI SAMITI LIMITED,AJMER, RAJASTHAN V. ASSESSMENT UNIT, INCOME TAX DEPARTMENT, NATIONAL FACELESS E-ASSESSMENT CENTRE, DELHI, DELHI

ITA 1450/JPR/2024

AI Insights

The case involves Daulatpura Dugdh Utpadak Sahkari Samiti Ltd., which appealed against the order of the National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi, concerning the assessment year 2020-21. The primary contention was the disallowance of a deduction claimed under Section 80P of the Income Tax Act, 1961, amounting to Rs. 30,22,856, due to non-compliance in providing necessary documentation. The CIT(A) dismissed the appeal due to a significant delay in filing, which was not condoned. The ITAT, however, found procedural lapses in the handling of the appeal and remanded the case for a fresh assessment, ensuring adherence to the principles of natural justice.

• Counselvise Citation: [2025] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 469913 (ITAT-JAIPUR)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 01-04-2025
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Partly Allowed
• Bench Allotted: SMC
• Assessment Year: 2020-2021
• Other Referred Cases: Ramlal v. Rewa Coalfields Ltd., Majji Sannemma @ Sanyasirao vs. Reddy Sridevi & Others, Esha Bhattacharjee vs. Managing Committee of Ranghunathpur Nafar Academy, J.B. Advani & Co. (P) Ltd. Vs. R.D. Shah Commissioner of Income Tax, Vama Apparels (India) (P.) Ltd. vs. Asst. Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle, Shiv Dass v. Union of India & Ors., Perumon Bhagvathy Devaswom, Perinadu Village vs. Bhargavi Amma (Dead) by LRs, Balwant Singh (Dead) vs. Jagdish Singh, Ornate Traders Private Limited vs. The Income Tax Officer, Mumbai, University of Delhi Vs Union of India & Ors., CIT vs. Ram Mohan Kabra
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act, 1961
• Result in Favour of: Partly Allowed
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: GAUTAM SINGH CHOUDHARY
• Keywords: Condonation of delay; Set aside; Opportunity of being heard; Reasonable cause; Corroborative evidences; Onus to prove; Period of limitation; Principle of natural justice
• Section: 144; 142(1); 201; 143(1); 13; 274; 80P

Judgement Text

"vk;dj vihyh; vf/kdj.k] t;iqj U;k;ihB] t;iqj IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, JAIPUR BENCHES,”SMC” JAIPUR Mk0 ,l- lhrky{eh] U;kf;d lnL; ,oa Jh jkBkSM+ deys'k t;UrHkkbZ] ys[kk lnL; ds le{k BEFORE: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI, JM & SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI, AM vk;dj vihy la-@ITA. No. 1450/JPR/2024 fu/kZkj.k o\"kZ@Assessment Years : 2020-21 Doulatpura Dugdh Utpadak Sahkari Samiti Limited. Panchayat Masuda, Bijainagar, Division Beawar. cuke Vs. Assessment Unit, Income Tax Department, National Faceless E-assessment Centre, Delhi. LFkk;h ys[kk la-@thvkbZvkj la-@PAN/GIR No.: AACAD5588M vihykFkhZ@Appellant izR;FkhZ@Respondent fu/kZkfjrh dh vksj ls@ Assessee by : None jktLo dh vksj ls@ Revenue by : Shri Gautam Singh Choudhary, JCIT-Sr. DR a lquokbZ dh rkjh[k@ Date of Hearing : 19/02/2025 mn?kks\"k.kk dh rkjh[k@Date of Pronouncement : 01/04/2025 vkns'k@ ORDER PER: RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI, AM By way of present appeal, the assessee challenges the order of National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi [for short CIT(A)] dated 11.11.2024 for assessment year 2020-21. Ld. CIT(A) passed that the order because the assessee challenged the assessment order passed u/s 144 r.w.s. 144B of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short “Act”) dated 20.09.2022 passed by National e-assessment Centre [ for short AO] before him. 2. In this appeal, the assessee has raised following grounds: - ITA No. 1450/JPR/2024 Daulatpura Dugdh Utpadak Sahkari Samiti Ltd. 2 “1. That the Ld. CIT(A) has failed to appreciate that if adjudicated on merits of the appeal; the appellant, being a genuine milk producing cooperation society, would have no tax liability as per the provisions of Section 80P of Income Tax Act, 1961. 2. That the appellant reserves the right to revise/ modify/ delete/add/alter any of the grounds of appeal. 3. That on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Order passed by the Ld. CIT(A) is technically flawed and is also injudicious, and deserves to be set aside for fresh adjudication on merits of the case. 4. That the Ld. CIT(A), while admitting and proceeding to dispose of the appeal based on the grounds of appeal, thereby impliedly condoned the delay in filing the appeal, has subsequently erred in dismissing the appeal solely on the ground of non-condonation of delay. 5. That the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in ignoring the facts and evidences of non-service of the relevant assessment order, and in not appreciating that there was no delay, if time limit of filing appeal is counted from the date of receipt of certified copy of Assessment Order. 6. That the Ld. CIT(A) has failed to adjudicate any of the grounds of appeal and has not addressed the issues on their merits. 7. That the Ld. CIT(A) has violated the principles of natural justice by failing to provide a reasonable opportunity of being heard to the appellant. No opportunity for a personal hearing or hearing through video conference was accorded, which further vitiates the proceedings. 8. That the Ld. CIT(A) has failed in their moral and statutory duty to safeguard and assist poor, illiterate, and helpless farmers, milkmen, ITA No. 1450/JPR/2024 Daulatpura Dugdh Utpadak Sahkari Samiti Ltd. 3 and villagers who are being harmed and harassed by such tax administration proceedings and orders.” 3. The brief facts of the case are that the return of income in this case was filed on 21.01.2021 declaring total income at Rs. 1,80,040/-. The return of income was processed u/s 143(1) of the Act. Subsequently, the case was selected for limited scrutiny under CASS. Notices as required under law were issued and served upon the assessee. The assessee was asked to furnish nature of business in brief, detailed computation of total income, bifurcation of income under the difference heads, note on objectives, copy of by- laws of the society, registration of certificate by Registrar of Co- operative societies, requested to justify the deduction claimed at Rs.30,22,856/- u/s 80P justification for eligibility claim of deduction with supporting evidences. The assessee has not made any to the notice issued. Hence a reminder letter was issued to the assessee on 10.12.2021 requesting to comply with said the notice issued u/s 142(1) dated 23.11.2021. Further, notices u/s 142(1) were issued dated 24.01.2022 and 25.02.2022. However, no response was received ITA No. 1450/JPR/2024 Daulatpura Dugdh Utpadak Sahkari Samiti Ltd. 4 from the assessee. Hence a show-cause notice u/s 144 has been issued on 19.03.2022. 3.1 The Ld. AO noted that on going through return filling history of the assessee it was noticed that the assessee has not filed his returns for the A.Y. 2018-19, 2019-20, On going through the Income Tax Returned filed by the assessee for A.Y. 2020-21, the assessee has furnished return in form the assessee who has income from Income from Business Profession and Income from other sources. The assessee has claimed deduction under Chapter-VI-A. In support of which the assessee hasn't furnished any details. Ld. AO thus noted that he has no alternate but to complete the assessment u/s 144 of the I.T. Act, 1961. As per provisions of Section 144(1)(b) of Income Tax Act, 1961, if the assessee fails to comply with terms of a notice issued u/s 142(1), the Assessing Officer gathers relevant material and make the assessment of the total income to the best of his judgment and determine the sum payable by the assessee based on such assessment. As the assessee failed to furnish any details relating to deduction claimed under Chapter VI-A during the year along with details sought. The case was finally fixed for hearing on 23/03/2022. No details were furnished through e-Proceedings by ITA No. 1450/JPR/2024 Daulatpura Dugdh Utpadak Sahkari Samiti Ltd. 5 the assessee till 24/03/2022. The Assessing Officer is left with no option but to complete the best judgment assessment on the basis of material evidences gathered during the assessment proceedings. In view of non-compliance from the assessee, it is clear that the assessee offer no explanation regarding the deduction claimed u/s.80P of the Income Tax Act, 1961 in his return of income at Rs. 30,22,856/-. Therefore, the amount of Rs.30,22,856/- shown as deduction 80P(2)((b) in the return of income is not allowable in absence of documentary evidences furnished by the assessee. The onus to prove is lies on the assessee to justify its claim in the return of income for the F.Y. 2019-20 relevant to the A.Y. 2020-21. Hence the claim of deduction 80P(2)((b) by the assessee for an amount of Rs.30,22,856/- was disallowed. 4. Aggrieved from the order of AO, the assessee preferred an appeal before the ld. CIT(A). That appeal so filed by the assessee was filed belated with a delay of 184 days. Whereas while filling the appeal memo in Form no. 35 against the column 14 the appellant- assessee stated that the appeal is not delayed. Apropos to the grounds so raised the relevant finding of the ld. CIT(A) is reiterated here in below:- ITA No. 1450/JPR/2024 Daulatpura Dugdh Utpadak Sahkari Samiti Ltd. 6 “However, the appellant has failed to furnish any documentary evidence to prove that the assessing officer was informed about the change of the chartered accountant and the appointment of new chartered accountant and his mail id thereof. The notices are sent on the registered mail id as provided by the appellant. Therefore, the reason for delay in filing the appeal would not constitute reasonable cause. In the absence of reasonable cause for delay in filing of appeal and not accompanied by any affidavit the contention of the appellant is not acceptable. When an appeal is filed beyond the statutory time limit, the Appellant need to provide a valid reason or demonstrate exceptional circumstances for the delay. The appellant must be able to demonstrate that there was \"sufficient cause\" which obstructed his action to file Appeal beyond the prescribed time limit. Thus, the condonation of delay is not automatic but is based upon on the facts of the case. The next question arises whether delay was excessive or inordinate. I have considered the submissions and perused the submissions of the appellant. As far as the delay in filing the appeal by 184 days is concerned, one has to admit that the delay involved is inordinate and not marginal. Personal problems or financial constraints per se could not constitute a reasonable cause, it is settled position of law that it is only marginal delays that can be condoned, and not inordinate delays. A liberal view ought to be taken in terms of delay of few days. However, when there is inordinate delay, one should be very cautious while condoning the delay. The delay of 184 days cannot be condoned simply because the appellant's case is hard and calls for sympathy or merely out of benevolence to the party seeking relief. In granting the indulgence and condoning the delay, it must be proved beyond the shadow of doubt that the appellant was diligent and was not guilty of negligence whatsoever. The sufficient cause within the contemplation of the limitation provision must be a cause which is beyond the control of the party invoking the aid of the provisions. The Supreme Court in the case of Ramlal v. RewaCoalfields Ltd., AIR 1962 SC 361 has held that the cause for the delay in filing the appeal which by due care and attention could have been avoided cannot be a sufficient cause within the meaning of the limitation provision. Where no negligence, nor inaction, or want of bona fides can be imputed to the appellant a liberal construction of the provisions has to be made in order to advance substantial justice. Seekers of justice must come with clean hands. In the present case, the reasons advanced by the ITA No. 1450/JPR/2024 Daulatpura Dugdh Utpadak Sahkari Samiti Ltd. 7 appellant do not show any good and sufficient reason to condone the delays. The delays are not properly explained by the appellant. There is no reason for condoning such delay in this case. The delay is nothing but negligence and inaction of the appellant which could have been very well avoided by the exercise of due care and attention. Further the appellant has not shown from record that any efforts were made for filing of the appeal on time. It is the duty of the appellant to file the appeal within the stipulated time provided under the Act unless the appellant is prevented by a reasonable cause from filling of the appeal in time. The appellant ought to have filed the appeal within the prescribed time limit of 30 days from date of service as per section 249(2) of the Act and any delay therein may be condoned only subject to the satisfaction that the appellant had sufficient cause for not presenting it within that period, as evident from the plain language of section 249 extracted as under: \"249(2) the appeal shall be presented within thirty days of the following date, that is to say- (a) Where the appeal is under section 248, the date of payment of the tax, or (b) Where the appeal relates to any assessment or penalty, the date of service of the notice of demand relating to the assessment or penalty: Provided that, where an application has been made under section 146 for reopening an assessment, the period from the date on which the application is made to the date on which the order passed on the application is served on the assessee shall be excluded: Provided further that where an application has been made under sub-section (1) of section 270AA, the period beginning from the date on which the application is made, to the date on which the order rejecting the application is served on the assessee, shall be excluded, or 1. In any other case, the date on which intimation of the order sought to be appealed against is served. (2) Notwithstanding anything contained in sub-section (2), where an order has been made under section 201 on or after the 1st day of October, 1998 but before the 1st day of June, 2000 and the assessee in default has not presented any appeal within the time specified in that ITA No. 1450/JPR/2024 Daulatpura Dugdh Utpadak Sahkari Samiti Ltd. 8 sub-section, he may present such appeal before the 1st day of July, 2000. (3) The Commissioner (Appeals) may admit an appeal after the expiration of the said period if he is satisfied that the appellant had sufficient cause for not presenting it within that period.\" It is pertinent to note that the delay may be condoned and the appeal may be admitted u/s249(3) only if the appellant could successfully demonstrate that it had sufficient cause for not presenting the appeal within the period of 30 days. The exercise of discretion in condonation of delay in matters of limitation, such as in the present case u/s 249(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 has to be carried out within the meaning of \"Sufficient Cause\" as envisaged in Section 5 of Limitation Act. Hence, the general rule of law of limitation is that an extension shall not be granted under Section 5 if there is no sufficient cause or cogent ground for the condonation of delay, the onus of proving which lies on the appellant/applicant as clearly laid down in the judicial pronouncements by the Highest Courts of Law. In the case of PerumonBhagvathy Devaswom, Perinadu Village v. BhargaviAmma (Dead) by LRs, (2008)8 SCC 321, It was observed by the Hon'ble Court that: \"13.... The words \"sufficient cause for not making the application within the period of limitation should be understood and applied in a reasonable, pragmatic, practical and liberal manner, depending upon the facts and circumstances of the case, and the type of case. The words \"sufficient cause in Section 5 of the Limitation Act should receive a liberal construction so as to advance substantial justice, when the delay is not on account of any dilatory tactics, want of bona fides, deliberate inaction or negligence on the part of the appellant.\" (Emphasis supplied)\". The aforesaid view was reiterated in the case of Balwant Singh (Dead) v. Jagdish Singh, (2010) 8 SCC 685, where in the Court held that: \"25. We may state that even if the term \"sufficient cause has to receive liberal construction, it must squarely fall within the concept of reasonable time and proper conduct of the party concerned. The purpose of introducing liberal construction normally is to introduce the concept of \"reasonableness\" as it is understood in its general connotation. The law of limitation is a substantive law and has definite ITA No. 1450/JPR/2024 Daulatpura Dugdh Utpadak Sahkari Samiti Ltd. 9 consequences on the right and obligation of a party to arise. These principles should be adhered to and applied appropriately depending on the facts and circumstances of a given case. Once a valuable right has accrued in favour of one party as a result of the failure of the other party to explain the delay by showing sufficient cause and its own conduct, it will be unreasonable to take away that right on the mere asking of the applicant, particularly when the delay is directly a result of negligence, default or inaction of that party. Justice must be done to both parties equally. Then alone the ends of justice can be achieved. If a party has been thoroughly negligent in implementing its rights and remedies, it will be equally unfair to deprive the other party of a valuable right that has accrued to it in law as a result of his acting vigilantly.\" The Courts in the abovementioned cases, highlighted upon the importance introducing the concept of \"reasonableness\" while giving the clause \"sufficient cause a liberal interpretation. In furtherance of the same, the Courts has cautioned regarding the necessity of distinguishing cases where delay is of few days, as against the cases where the delay is inordinate as it might accrue to the prejudice of the rights of the other party. In such cases, where there exists inordinate delay and the same is attributable to the party's inaction and negligence, the Courts have to take a strict approach so as to protect the substantial rights of the parties. The Division bench of the Hon'ble Bombay HC in Ornate Traders Private Limited v. The Income Tax Officer, Mumbal emphasized the need for reasonableness and hence, the actions which can be condoned by the court should fall within the scope of normal human conduct or normal conduct of a litigant. The Hon'ble Bombay HC further observed that while Section 5 of the Limitation Act is being interpreted liberally, it cannot be so liberally that it is without any justification, since condonation of delay in a mechanical or routine manner will jeopardize the legislative intent behind Section 5. The Hon'ble SC in the case of Shiv Dass v. Union of India (UOI) and Ors., AIR 2007 SC 1330 held that the High Courts, while exercising their discretionary powers under Article 226, should consider delay or laches and, refuse to invoke its extraordinary powers if it is found that the applicant had neglected/omitted to assert its rights in a timely manner; however, this discretion has to be exercised Judicially and reasonably. ITA No. 1450/JPR/2024 Daulatpura Dugdh Utpadak Sahkari Samiti Ltd. 10 From the above decisions it becomes clear that in the case of condonation of delay where the appeal was filed beyond the limitation of period, the courts are empowered to condone the delay, provided that the Appellant can prove his claim of inability to file appeal within the prescribed period. Litigant must be able to demonstrate that there was \"sufficient cause\" which obstructed his action to file Appeal beyond the prescribed time limit. The law of limitation is found upon the maxims \"Interest ReipublicaeUt Sit FinisLitium\" that litigation must come to an end in the interest of society as a whole and \"vigilantibus non dormientibus Jura subveniunt that the law assists those that are vigilant with their rights, and not those that sleep thereupon. The law of limitation in India identifies the need for limiting litigation by striking a balance between the interests of the state and the litigant. Apart from the above there are various judgements laying down such position of rejection, which are brought out in following paragraphs. The delay should not be condoned simply because the appellant's case is hard and calls for sympathy or merely out of benevolence to the party seoking rellet. In granting the indulgence and condoning the delay it must be proved beyond the shadow of doubt that the appellant was diligent and was not guilty of negligence whatsoever. The sufficient cause within the contemplation of the limitation provision must be a cause which is beyond the control of the party invoking the aid of the provisions. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Ramlal vs. Rewa Coalfields Ltd. AIR 1962 SC 361 has held that the cause for the delay in filing the appeal which by due care and attention could have been avoided cannot be a sufficient cause within the meaning of the limitation provision, Where no negligence, nor inaction, or want of bona fides can be imputed to the appellant e liberal construction of the provisions has to be made in order to advance substantial justice. Seekers of justice must come with clean hands. [JCIT Vs Tractors & Farm Equipment Ltd. (ITAT. Chennai) 104 ITD 149 followed). Thus, there exists no sufficient and good reason for the delay of 184 days. Such delay cannot be condoned as condonation in the present case would not be in accordance with the exposition emanating out of the Hon'ble apex Court and Hon'ble jurisdictional High Court decisions. It will rather be grave prejudice to the Department. As already expressed by the apex Court in the case cited supra that the State is also a litigant and need not be given a step-motherly treatment. In this context, the decision of Hon'ble Punjab and Haryana High Court in the ITA No. 1450/JPR/2024 Daulatpura Dugdh Utpadak Sahkari Samiti Ltd. 11 case of CIT vs. Ram Mohan Kabra (2002) 178 CTR (P& H) 274 is relevant, which reads as under: The provisions relating to prescription of limitation in every statute must not be construed so liberally that it would have the effect of taking away the benefit accruing to the other party in a mechanical manner. Where the legislature spells out a period of limitation and provides for power to condone the delay as well, then such delay can be condoned only for sufficient and good reasons supported by cogent and proper evidence. Now, it is a settled principle of law that the provisions relating to specified period of limitation must be applied with their rigour and effective Since the appellant has failed to show any \"sufficient cause\" u/s 249(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 for the appellant's failure to file the appeal within the prescribed period of limitation u/s 249(2) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 r.w.s. 5 of Limitation Act. The abnormal delays cannot be condoned. In a recent judgment in the case of University of Delhi Vs Union of India &Ors. In Civil Appeal No. 9488 of 2019 vide Order dated 17/12/2019, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has refused to condone delay by holding that, The entire explanation as noted above, depicts the casual approach unmindful of the law of limitation despite being aware of the position of law. That apart when there is such a long delay and there is no proper explanation, laches would also come into play while noticing as to the manner in which a party has proceeded before ling an appeal. In the matter of condonation of delay and laches, the well accepted position is also that the accrued right of the opposite party cannot be lightly dealt with.\" 1, therefore, hold that the appeal has been filed beyond the prescribed time limit of section 249(2) of the Act, hence the Delay cannot be condoned and appeal In case of Medsave Health Insurance Vs ACIT (ITAT Delhi) ITAT Delhi Health Insurance Vs ACIT: ITA No. 1027, 1028 & 1014 to 1016/Del/2022 Date of Judgement/Order: 29/03/2023 affirmed the views of the Hon'ble Madras High Court in the case of Vijayeswari Textiles Ltd vs. CIT (2003) (131 Taxman 833 where in It was held that if the appeal is adjudicated on merits, then, refusing to condone the delay in filing of an appeal is an error. Action of refusing to condone the delay, but, to dispose of the appeal on merit is untenable in law. - ITA No. 1450/JPR/2024 Daulatpura Dugdh Utpadak Sahkari Samiti Ltd. 12 \".........In our considered view, once the Id. Commissioner declined to condone the delay in filling of the appeal being time barred by limitation, then there is no need to go into merits of the case, vice versa, once the Ld. Commissioner decided the appeals on merits then the inference can be drawn that delay if any. in filling of appeal is condoned and the appeal is admitted as the Id. Commissioner first should have decided the issue qua condonation of delay in filling of the appeals and on satisfying that the Assessee has failed to establish sufficient cause for not filling the appeals within the prescribed period of limitation, the appeals should have been dismissed at the very threshold only on the point of limitation, whatsoever once the appeals decided on merit, then there was no need to go into the controversy qua limitation and to decline the condonation of delay, hence we are inclined not to approve such view, however as we have already dealt with the findings on merit of the case by the Id. Commissioner and therefore decision of the Id. Commissioner on merit is upheld. The issue of condonation of delay is no more res -integra for this reliance is placed on the following judgments passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court and High Courts as well as the Tribunal. S. No. Descriptions File before/Citation 1. Order of Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of MAJJI SANNeMMA @ Sanyasirao vs. Reddy Sredevi & Others Civil Appeal No. 7696 of 2021 dated December 16,2021. Order of Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of EshaBhattacharjee vs. Managing Committee of Ranghunathpur Nafar Academy and other Civil Appeal Nos. 8183-8184 of 2013 (arising out of S.L.P C Nos. 24868-24869 of 2011. 3. Decision in the case of J.B. Advani & Co. (P) Ltd. Vs. R.D. Shah Commissioner of Income Tax Supreme Court of India (1969) 72ITR 395 (SC) dated Agust 22, 1968. ITA No. 1450/JPR/2024 Daulatpura Dugdh Utpadak Sahkari Samiti Ltd. 13 4. Decision in the case of Vama Apparels (India) (P.) Ltd. vs. Asst. Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle, High Court of Bombay. (2019) 102 taxmann.com 398 (Bombay), dated January 11, 2019. In the light of the above, there is no merit in the statement as mentioned in form no 35 of appeal for condonation of delay. In the case of Vishwabharati Mutually Aided Cooperative Credit Society Ltd vs. Income Tax Officer in ITA Nos 360 to 364/Hyd/2022 for the A.Ys 2010-11, 2011-12, and 2013-14 to 2015-16 dated 13.02.2023 wherein the Tribunal in Para 14 & 15 held as under \"14. Further, the assessee's reasons in the condonation petition do not come under reasonable cause. As prescribed under the Act, for condonation of dolay and the explanation given by the assessee for delay is not proper and casual in nature. The reasons given by the assessee are devoid of any morit and not sustainable in the eyes of law. The law requires the assessee to be vigilant and careful in prosecuting its rights under the Act. Considering the totality of the facts and circumstances of the case and the conduct of the assessee, wo do not find any reason to entertain the present appeal as the same is barred by limitation. 15. We also draw strength from the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of MajjiSannemma Sanyasirao Vs. Reddy Sridevi and others (Civil Appeal No.7696 of 2021 dt.16.12.2021 relied upon by the Id.DR, wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court dismissed the condonation petition. The facts of this case are identical to the facts of the present case\". Further following the recent decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India as under; IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL NO .....OF 2023 ARISING OUT OF SLP (C) No.15793 OF 2019 ITA No. 1450/JPR/2024 Daulatpura Dugdh Utpadak Sahkari Samiti Ltd. 14 AJAY DABRA Appellant(s) Versus PYARE RAM & ORS. ...Respondent(s) WITH CIVIL APPEAL NO...... …………….......OF 2023 ARISING OUT OF SLP (C) No.15848 OF 2019 AJAY DABRA…………………….Appellant(s) Versus SUNDER SINGH & ANR. ...Respondent(s) 3. In both the above appeals, there is a common challenge against order dated 17.12.2018 passed by the Single Judge of the High Court of Himachal Pradesh in CMP (M) No.75 of 2018 & CMP (M) No.76 of 2018. The impugned order dismisses the delay condonation applications filed under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963, declining to condone a delay of 254 days, because the reasons assigned for the condonation were not sufficient reasons for condonation of the delay. The Appellant herein had earlier filed two suits (bearing nos. 28/2012 & 29/2012), for specific performance which were dismissed by the District Judge, Kullu vide order dated 30.12.2016, 4. According to the Appellant the delay ought to have been condoned and his appeal should have been heard on its merits. 10. This Court, while emphasizing the scope of Section 5 of the Limitation Act, in the case of Mahant Bikram Dass Chela versus Financial Commissioner, Revenue, Punjab, Chandigarh And Others has held: 21. Section 5 of the Limitation Act is a hard task-master and judicial interpretation has encased it within a narrow compass. A large measure of case-law has grown around Section 5, its highlights being that one ought not easily to take away a right which has accrued to a party by lapse of time and that therefore a litigant who is not vigilant about his rights must explain every day's delay. These and similar considerations which influence the decision of Section 5 applications are out of place in cases where the appeal itself is preferred within the period of limitation but there is an irregularity in presenting it. Thus, in ITA No. 1450/JPR/2024 Daulatpura Dugdh Utpadak Sahkari Samiti Ltd. 15 the instant case, there was no occasion to invoke the provisions of Section 5, Limitation Act, or of Rule 4, Chapter I of the High Court Rules. If the Division Bench were aware that Rule 3 of Chapter 2-C is directory, it would have treated the appeal as having been filed within the period of limitation, rendering it inapposite to consider whether the delay caused in fling the appeal could be condoned.\" This Court in the case of Basawaraj and Another versus Special Land Acquisition Officer while rejecting an application for condonation of delay for lack of sufficient cause has concluded in Paragraph 15 as follows: “15. The law on the issue can be summarized to the effect that where a case has been presented in the court beyond limitation, the applicant 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, In case a party is found to be negligent, or for want of bona fide on his part in the facts and circumstances of the case, or found to have not acted diligently or remained Inactive, there cannot be a Justified ground to condone the delay. Na court could be justified in condoning such an inordinate delay by imposing any condition whatsoever. The application is to be decided only within the parameters laid down by this court in regard to the There exists no sufficient or good reason for condoning inordinate delays of more than 184 days in filing appeal. Accordingly, this appeal is dismissed as barred by limitation. Accordingly I decline to condone the delay of 184 days, and dismiss this appeal of the appellant as barred by limitation. In view of the above discussion appeal is rendered as inadmissible. Hence stand dismissed.” 5. As the assessee did not receive any favour from the appeal so filed before Ld. CIT(A). The present appeal filed against the said order of the Ld. CIT(A) before us on the grounds as reiterated here in above raising there in 8 various grounds. Vide Ground no. 4 the assessee contended that the ld. CIT(A) while admitting and ITA No. 1450/JPR/2024 Daulatpura Dugdh Utpadak Sahkari Samiti Ltd. 16 proceeding to dispose of appeal based on the grounds of appeal thereby implied that the delay is condoned. The assessee submitted the details and the same is evident from the order of the ld. CIT(A). 6. Per contra, ld. DR relied upon the orders of the lower authority and submitted that the assessee even in the present proceeding does not represent the case and has not explained as to why the appeal filed before ld. CIT(A) was belated. 7. We have heard ld. DR and perused the materials available on record. The bench noted that in this case the assessment order was passed as per provision of section 144 of the Act as the assessee has not justified their claim after filling the return of income in time and thereby their claim of deduction u/s. 80P of the Act was denied. When the matter carried before the ld. CIT(A), he noted that the appeal was filed belatedly and thereby the delay was not condone and the appeal was dismissed by the ld. CIT(A). Vide Ground no. 4 raised the assessee contended that after filling in an application for condonation of delay vide notice dated 28.10.2024 the ld. CIT(A) issued a notice stating as under: “As seen from the records, it is observed that you have already filled certain written submission / details in support of late filing of appeal. In ITA No. 1450/JPR/2024 Daulatpura Dugdh Utpadak Sahkari Samiti Ltd. 17 view of these, it is observed to dispose of the appeal based on the grounds of appeal., statement of facts and written submission/details filed. However, before disposal of the appeal as proposed above by following the principle of natural justice you are hereby offered one more opportunity to file further submission if any in support of the grounds of appeal on or before 11-11- 2024.” Based on that set of fact we found force in the ground no. 4 raised by the assessee that in this case the Principles of natural justice are violated but same being the soul of an administration of justice and need to be adhered to in order to make the order as a just and fair order. We are also of the view that lis between the parties has to be decided on merits so that nobody’s rights could be scuttled down without providing opportunity of being heard to the assessee. Thus, the bench noted that considering the overall facts of the case the assessee be given a chance to represent their case before the ld. AO as the order passed in both proceedings are ex- parte. Considering that peculiar aspect of the matter we deem it fit to remand the matter to the file of the ld. AO who will consider the factual aspect of the matter and decide the issue after providing sufficient opportunity to the assessee and decided the issue in accordance with the law. However, the assessee will not seek any adjournment on frivolous ground and remain cooperative during proceedings before the ld. AO. ITA No. 1450/JPR/2024 Daulatpura Dugdh Utpadak Sahkari Samiti Ltd. 18 8. Before parting, we may make it clear that our decision to restore the matter back to the file of the ld. AO shall in no way be construed as having any reflection or expression on the merits of the dispute, which shall be adjudicated by the ld. AO independently in accordance with law. In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced in the open Court on 01/04/2025. Sd/- Sd/- ¼ Mk0 ,l- lhrky{eh ½ ¼ jkBkSM+ deys'k t;UrHkkbZ ½ (Dr. S. Seethalakshmi) (Rathod Kamlesh Jayantbhai) U;kf;d lnL;@Judcial Member ys[kk lnL;@Accountant Member Tk;iqj@Jaipur fnukad@Dated:- 01/04/2025 *Santosh vkns'k dh izfrfyfi vxzsf’kr@Copy of the order forwarded to: 1. vihykFkhZ@The Appellant- Daulatpura Dugdh Utpadak Sahkari Samiti Ltd, Ajmer. 2. izR;FkhZ@ The Respondent- Assessment Unit, Income Tax Department, National Faceless e-Assessment Centre, Delhi. 3. vk;dj vk;qDr@ CIT 4. vk;dj vk;qDr@ CIT(A) 5. foHkkxh; izfrfuf/k] vk;dj vihyh; vf/kdj.k] t;iqj@DR, ITAT, Jaipur. 6. xkMZ QkbZy@ Guard File { ITA No. 1450/JPR/2024} vkns'kkuqlkj@ By order, lgk;d iathdkj@Asstt. Registrar "