LALITABEN VIKAS FOUNDATION,RAJKOT V. ITO EXEMPTION WD 1, RAJKOT

ITA 882/RJT/2024

AI Insights

The case involves Lalitaben Vikas Foundation appealing against an order from the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals), which itself arose from an order passed by the Centralized Processing Center (CPC), Bangalore. The primary contention was the ex-parte nature of the CIT(A)'s order, which the appellant argued violated the principles of natural justice as they were not given a proper opportunity to represent their case. The appellant also faced a delay in filing the appeal due to late receipt of the assessment order and unfamiliarity with the e-filing process. The Tribunal found sufficient cause for the delay and emphasized the need for substantial justice over technicalities, leading to the decision to restore the case for a fresh hearing.

• Counselvise Citation: [2025] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 312481 (ITAT-RAJKOT)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 30-04-2025
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: SMC
• Assessment Year: 2017-2018
• Other Referred Cases: Chaman Lal Bros. P. Ltd. v. The Punjab State, Collector, Land Acquisition vs Mst. Katiji and Others
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act, 1961
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: ABHIMANYU SINGH YADAV
• Assessee Lawyers: G. R. SANGHAVI
• Keywords: Set aside; Opportunity of being heard; Principle of natural justice; Right to appeal

Judgement Text

"ITA NO. 882/Rjt/2024 A.Y. 17-18 Lalitaben Vikas Foundation Page | 1 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, RAJKOT BENCH(SMC), RAJKOT BEFORE DR. ARJUN LAL SAINI, AM. आयकर अपील सं./ITA No.882/RJT/2024 Ǔनधा[रण वष[/Assessment Year: (2017-18) Lalitaben Vikas Foundation, C/O Charma Shilp, Rajkot-360 001 Vs Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(Exemption), New Aaykar Bhawan, Rajkot-360 001 èथायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./PAN/GIR No.:AAATL2672 F (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant by : Shri G.R. Sanghavi, AR Respondent by : Shri Abhimanyu Singh Yadav, Sr. DR Date of Hearing : 12/03/2025 Date of Pronouncement : 30/04/2025 आदेश / O R D E R Dr. ARJUNLAL SAINI AM; Captioned appeal filed by assessee pertaining to Assessment Year 2017- 18, is directed against order passed by Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeal)/Addl/JCIT(A)-1, Mumbai, vide order dated 04.10.2024, which in turn arises out of an order passed by the Centralized Processing Center (CPC), Bangalore/Assessing Officer dated 09.03.2019 u/s 143(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. 2. At the outset itself, the ld. Counsel for the assessee assailed the impugned order by contending that the assessee could not represent his case before Ld. CIT(A) and the order being an ex-parte order, stood vitiated on account of violation of principle of natural justice. The learned Counsel for the assessee, submitted that there was delay in filing the appeal before the ld. CIT(A) by 44 days. The assessee has explained the reasons of such delay and sufficient cause for such delay, stating that assessment order itself was not received on time ITA NO. 882/Rjt/2024 A.Y. 17-18 Lalitaben Vikas Foundation Page | 2 from the department and thereafter the tax consultant of the assessee took some time to prepare the appeal and in this process, the delay of 44 days has occurred. Besides, the assessee did not know about the E- filing of the appeal and faceless proceedings before the ld CIT(A). Therefore, learned Counsel contended that delay of 44 should be condoned in filing the appeal before the ld. CIT(A) and matter may be restored back to the file of the learned CIT(A) to adjudicate the issue on merit. 3. Learned Senior DR for the Revenue debarred from objecting the stand of the ld. Counsel, however, he stated that assessee was negligent during the proceedings before the ld. CIT(A), therefore, a cost of Rs.500/- may be imposed on the assessee, which may be deposited in the Prime Minister National Relief Fund. 4. I have heard both the parties. Before me, the assessee has explained the sufficient cause for delay of 44 days in filing the appeal before the ld CIT(A). 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 considering the condonation petition, it is to be remembered that statutes conferring a right of appeal must be construed in furtherance of justice and the provision limiting the time for bringing an appeal must be liberally interpreted, so that the party pursuing such remedy allowed to him by the law is not non- suited on mere technicalities [Chaman Lal Bros. P. Ltd. v. The Punjab State, (1961) 12 STC 643 (Punj)]. I am of the view that provisions of law have to be adhered strictly and that one cannot be allowed to act in leisure and make a mockery of enacted law, because law & provisions are laid down to benefit both sides of litigation. Be that as it may, I have to do justice and the Hon’ble ITA NO. 882/Rjt/2024 A.Y. 17-18 Lalitaben Vikas Foundation Page | 3 Supreme Court in the case of Collector, Land Acquisition vs Mst. Katiji and Others, reported in 167 ITR 471, (1988 SC 897) (7) observes .... “4. 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.” When I weigh these two aspects then the side of justice becomes heavier and casts a duty on me to deliver justice. I, therefore, condone the delay in filing the appeal before the ld. CIT(A). 5. I note that the ld. CIT(A) did not discuss the assessee’s case on merits based on the material available before him hence it is a violation of principle of natural justice. I note that 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 its case. Therefore, without delving much deeper into the merits of the case, in the interest of justice, I restore the matter back to the file of Ld. CIT(A) for fresh adjudication and pass a speaking order after affording sufficient opportunity of being heard to the assessee, who in turn, is also directed to contest his stand forthwith. Therefore, I deem it fit and proper to set aside the order of the ld. CIT(A) and remit the matter back to the file of the ld. CIT(A) to adjudicate the issue afresh on merits. For statistical purposes, the appeal of the assessee is treated as allowed. 6. In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced in the open court on 30/04/2025. Sd/- (Dr. A.L. SAINI) लेखा सदÖय/ACCOUNTANT MEMBER राजकोट /Rajkot िदनांक/ Date: 30/04/2025 DKP Outsourcing Sr.P.S ITA NO. 882/Rjt/2024 A.Y. 17-18 Lalitaben Vikas Foundation Page | 4 आदेश कì ÿितिलिप अúेिषत/ Copy of the order forwarded to :  अपीलाथê/ The Appellant  ÿÂयथê/ The Respondent  आयकर आयुĉ/ CIT  आयकर आयुĉ(अपील)/ The CIT(A)  िवभागीय ÿितिनिध, आयकर अपीलीय आिधकरण, राजकोट/ DR, ITAT, RAJKOT  गाडªफाईल/ Guard File // True Copy // By order/आदेशसे , सहायक पंजीकार आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण ,राजकोट "