Jay Ganesh Ginning & Oil Mill, Tankara, Dist. Morbi V. The ITO Ward-2, Morbi, Morbi

ITA 237/RJT/2023

• Counselvise Citation: [2024] 101 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 5943 (ITAT-RAJKOT)
• Duration Of Justice: 11 month(s) 25 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 04-07-2024
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: DB
• Next Hearing Date: 09-06-2024
• Assessment Year: 2013-2014
• Appeal Filed On: 09-07-2023
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: ASHISH KUMAR PANDEY
• Keywords: Income from undisclosed sources; Condonation of delay
• Section: 143(3); 250; 44AB

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL RAJKOT BENCH, RAJKOT BEFORE DR. ARJUN LAL SAINI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER And SHRI DINESH MOHAN SINHA, JUDICIAL MEMBER आयकर अपील सं./ITA No.237/RJT/2023 (Assessment Year: 2013-14) (Hybrid Hearing) Jay Ganesh Ginning & Oil Mill, Survey No. 109, Latipar Highway, Tankara, Gujarat-363650 Vs. ITO, Ward-2, Morbi èथायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./PAN/GIR No.: AADFJ6729L (अपीलाथȸ/Appellant) (Ĥ×यथȸ/Respondent) Ǔनधा[ǐरतीकȧओरसे/Assessee by : Shri Rashmin Vekariya, AR राजèवकȧओरसे/Revenue by : Shri Ashish Kumar Pandey, Sr. DR स ु नवाईकȧतारȣख/ Date of Hearing : 10/06/2024 घोषणाकȧतारȣख/Date of Pronouncement : 05/07/2024 आदेश/ORDER PER SHRI DINESH MOHAN SINHA, JM: Captioned appeal filed by the Assessee for A.Y. 2013-14 is directed against the order passed by the Ld.CIT(A), National Faceless Appeal Centre, (in short ‘the NFAC’), Delhi dated 27.12.2022 under section 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short, ‘the Act’). 2. The Grounds of appeal raised by the assessee are as follows:- “1. The Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) erred on facts as also in law in confirming addition of Rs. 19,46,866/- being difference between stock as per books and stock submitted to bank for availing cash credit facility treating the same as unaccounted income. The addition may kindly be deleted.” I.T.A No. 237/Rjt/2023 A.Y. 2013-14 Jay Ganesh Ginning & Oil Mill vs. ITO 2 3. On perusal of the application for condonation of delay filed by the assessee before us, the prayer for the condonation of delay is reproduced below for your ready reference: “1 The appellant, a partnership firm, is assessed to tax by the Income Tax Officer, Ward-2, Morbi (hereinafter referred to as the "AO"), It is engaged in the manufacturing of cottonseed oil & cottonseed cake. Regular books of account are maintained, which are duly audited u/s. 44AB of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the "Act"). 2 Return of income for the assessment year under consideration was filed on 17,08.2013 declaring the total income at Rs. 63,883/-. 3 The AO, vide order u/s. 143(3) of the Act dated 30.03.2016 assessed the total income at Rs.20,10,750/-, wherein he made addition of Rs, 19,46,866/- being difference between stock as per books and stock submitted to bank for availing cash credit facility treating the same as unaccounted income. 4 The appellant had filed an appeal before Hon'ble Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-3, Rajkot. Later on the appeal was transferred to National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi [hereinafter referred to as the "NFAC"]. The NFAC had issued hearing notices on mail ID "[e-mail]". However this mail ID was blocked due to non-operation. Therefore the appellant did not receive any hearing notices. Later on the appeal was dismissed vide order dated 27.12.2022 in appeal No. CIT (A), Rajkot- 3/10361/2016-17, NFAC sent the Appellate Order on same mail ID "[e-mail]". As the e-mail ID was blocked the appellate order was also not received by the appellant. The appellant did not receive any communication physically. As a part of natural justice if the notices issued electronically are not complied, then the assessee must be given a chance by way of physical notice. However neither the notice not the appellant order was sent physically. Recently on casual view of online profile the appellant came to know that the appellate order is passed. 5 Thus the delay in filing of appeal was occurred. The appeal is filed after due date due to the reasons stated above i.e. non service of the order and unintentional lapse on the part of the appellant. 6 In view of the above, the appellant humbly prays before Your Honour that the delay in filing above appeal may kindly be condoned and may please be admitted and decided on merits by exercising of Your Honour's powers. In this connection, the appellant begs to invite your kind attention to the decision to the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Collector, Land Acquisition Vs. Kathiji (MST) (1987) 167 ITR 471.” 4. At the outset, that the delay is filed late by 135 days. That the application for condonation of delay duly supported by affidavit and the I.T.A No. 237/Rjt/2023 A.Y. 2013-14 Jay Ganesh Ginning & Oil Mill vs. ITO 3 same is placed on record. The A.R. submitted that the order of the ld. CIT(A) was not received by the assessee because of email id of the assessee was blocked. The Ld. A.R. of the assessee further requested for one more opportunity for being heard. The assessee has relied on judgment of Land Acquisition v. Mst. Katiji (MST) (1987) 167 ITR 471. The relevant portion of the judgment is reproduced below: “4.1 The Supreme Court in the case of Collector, Land Acquisition v. Mst. Katiji (supra), analyzed the provisions of law qua limitation Act and held that the expression 'sufficient cause' employed by the legislature in the Limitation Act is adequately elastic to enable the Courts to apply the law in a meaningful manner which sub-serves the ends of justice that being the life purpose for the existence of the institution of Courts. It was further observed that a liberal approach is requires to be adopted on principle as ordinarily a litigant does not stand to benefit by lodging an appeal late. Further refusing to condone delay can result in a meritorious matter being thrown out at the very threshold and cause of justice being defeated. As against this when delay is condoned the highest that can happen is that a cause would be decided on merits after hearing the parties. The Apex Court further held that 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. It must be grasped that judiciary is respected not on account of its power to legalize injustice on technical grounds but because it is capable of removing injustice and is expected to do so.” 5. On the other hand, the Ld. D.R. has supported the order of the Ld. CIT(A), dated 27.12.2022. The assessee has not disclosed any reasonable and plausible explanation for condonation of delay in filing the appeal before this Tribunal. The plea raised by the Ld. A.R. seems to be a self- serving story. 6. We have heard both the parties and perused the document available on record. We noted that the application for condonation of delay is vague. No evidences brought on record about the block of email id. The Ld. A.R. I.T.A No. 237/Rjt/2023 A.Y. 2013-14 Jay Ganesh Ginning & Oil Mill vs. ITO 4 could not establish a sufficient cause for condonation of delay from filing the appeal in time. We consider that there is no force in application for condonation of delay hence dismissed. Accordingly, the appeal of the assessee also dismissed. 7. In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed. Order pronounced in the open court on 05-07-2024 Sd/- Sd/- (DR. A. L. SAINI) (DINESH MOHAN SINHA) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER Rajkot; Dated: 05/07/2024 आदेश कȧ ĤǓतͧलͪप अĒेͪषत / Copy of Order Forwarded to:- 1. Assessee 2. Revenue 3. Concerned CIT 4. CIT (A) 5. DR, ITAT, Rajkot. 6. Guard file. By order/आदेश से, Assistant Registrar/Sr. P.S./P.S. ITAT, Rajkot