JANAKBHAI RANCHHODBHAI SINDHAV, AT KHAREDA TAL KOTDA SANGANI V. ITO, WARD-1(2)(1), RAJKOT, RAJKOT

ITA 28/RJT/2024

• Counselvise Citation: [2024] 101 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 5778 (ITAT-RAJKOT)
• Duration Of Justice: 5 month(s) 28 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 15-07-2024
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: DB
• Assessment Year: 2011-2012
• Appeal Filed On: 17-01-2024
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: ASHISH KUMAR PANDEY
• Assessee Lawyers: SULEMAN GUNGA
• Keywords: Condonation of delay; Set aside
• Section: 147; 144

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, “SMC” RAJKOT BENCH, RAJKOT BEFORE DR. ARJUN LAL SAINI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER आयकर अपील सं./ITA No. 28/RJT/2024 (Assessment Year: 2011-12) (Hybrid Hearing) Janakbhai Ranchhodbhai Sindhav, At: Khareda Tal Kotda Sangani, Rajkot Vs. The ITO, Ward-1(2)(1),Rajkot Rajkot èथायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./PAN/GIR No.: CREPS4258K (अपीलाथȸ/Appellant) (Ĥ×यथȸ/Respondent) Ǔनधा[ǐरतीकȧओरसे/Assessee by : Shri Suleman Gunga, AR राजèवकȧओरसे/Revenue by : Shri Ashish Kumar Pandey, Sr. DR स ु नवाईकȧतारȣख/ Date of Hearing : 16/07/2024 घोषणाकȧतारȣख/Date of Pronouncement : 16/07/2024 आदेश/ORDER Captioned appeal filed by the Assessee, pertaining to assessment year (A.Y.) 2011-12, is directed against the order passed by the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), (National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi), which in turn arises, out of an assessment order passed by Assessing Officer u/s 144 r.w.s. 147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short, ‘the Act’) vide order dated 26-11-2018. 2. The appeal filed by the assessee is barred by limitation by 30 days. The assessee moved a petition for condonation of delay requesting the Bench to condone he delay. The important contents of the petition for condonation of delay are reproduced below:- I.T.A No. 28/Rjt/2024 A.Y. 2011-12 Janakbhai Ranchhodbhai Sindhav vs. ITO 2 “5 That no notices or appellate order was delivered on email address given in Form No.35, but the notices and appellate order was delivered on email id: [e-mail] of my previous advisor which was registered at the time of PAN registration in my profile on e-filing portal of the Department. Appellate order was delivered on email: [e-mail], who has not informed me about the disposal of appeal filed before the CIT(A) and that since his email id was registered with the e-filing portal of the Department, I have no knowledge about the disposal of appeal. 6. When I went to visit from my village to Gondal City at my legal adviser office in the month of January, 2024 and I enquired from him about the status of appeal filed before the CIT(A), at that time I came to know about the disposal of appeal, he intimated that the appeal has been dismissed by the Ld. CIT(A) in an ex-parte manner, and therefore, the impugned appeal could not be filed within the time limit of 60 days specified.” 3. The ld. counsel for the assessee submitted that based on the contents of petition for condonation of delay as noted above, the assessee has explained the sufficient cause therefore the delay should be condoned in the interest of justice. 4. On the other hand, the ld. D.R. for the revenue submitted that the assessee has failed to explain the sufficient cause therefore delay should not be condoned on the basis of flimsy reasons stated above. 5. I have heard both the parties on this preliminary issue and noted that the assessee was not familiar with internet and email account since assessee is an agriculturist. Therefore, email address mentioned in the Form No. 35 was of the assessee’s previous tax advisor who was responsible to handle the taxation matters of the assessee. The previous tax advisor did not inform the assessee about the service of notice by the ld. CIT(A) and the passing of the ex-parte order by the ld. CIT(A) hence delay of 30 days in filing the appeal has occurred. I have gone through the contents of the petition and the affidavit and noted that the reasons explained in the petition for condonation of delay are convincing and these reasons constitute a sufficient cause to I.T.A No. 28/Rjt/2024 A.Y. 2011-12 Janakbhai Ranchhodbhai Sindhav vs. ITO 3 condone the delay. Therefore, in the interest of justice, the delay is condoned and assessee’s appeal is admitted for hearing. 6. On merit, the ld. Counsel for the assessee, submitted that the order passed by the ld. CIT(A) is an ex-parte order, as the assessee did not receive the notices of hearing during the appellate proceedings. The notices of hearing were delivered to the legal advisor of the assessee and the legal advisor of the assessee did not inform the assessee about the service of notice, therefore, the assessee could not plead his case successfully before the ld. CIT(A). The ld. Counsel submitted that now the assessee is ready to submit the required documents, details and submissions before ld. CIT(A) and therefore, the matter may be remitted back to the file of ld. CIT(A) for fresh adjudication. 7. On the other hand, ld. D.R. for the Revenue submitted that instead of giving lot of opportunities by the ld. CIT(A), the assessee did not appear before the ld. CIT(A), therefore, assessee’s appeal should be dismissed. 8. I have heard both the parties and perused the materials available on record. I note that in assessee’s case, assessment order was framed u/s. 144 r.w.s. 147 of the Act, as there was non-compliance before the assessing officer. Before the ld. CIT(A), the assessee could not appear due to non- service of notice for hearing, on the assessee. Therefore, ld. CIT(A) has passed an ex-parte order. I note that ld. CIT(A) did not discuss assessee’s case on merit based on the entire materials available on record during the proceedings before him, therefore, order passed by the ld. CIT(A) is not in I.T.A No. 28/Rjt/2024 A.Y. 2011-12 Janakbhai Ranchhodbhai Sindhav vs. ITO 4 accordance with the mandate of the provisions of section 250(6) of the Act. Although there is non-compliance on the part of the assessee before the ld. CIT(A), however, now the assessee undertakes the responsibility to file the documents and details before ld. CIT(A), therefore I am of the view that one more opportunity should be granted to the assessee to plead his case before the ld. CIT(A). Therefore, I set aside the order of the CIT(A) and remit the matter back to the file of Ld. CIT(A) for fresh adjudication. The assessee is also directed to file the relevant details and documents as and when required by the ld. CIT(A); for disposal of this appeal. 9. In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced in the open court on 16-07-2024 Sd/- (A. L. SAINI) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Rajkot Dated: 16/07/2024 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 ITAT, Rajkot