SHRI SARDAR PATEL SARAFI SAHKARI MANDALI LTD,BAGASARA V. THE ITO WARD 3(1)(4), AAYAKAR BHAVAN

ITA 560/RJT/2025

AI Insights

The case involves Shri Sardar Patel Sarafi Sahkari Mandali Ltd., the appellant, contesting an ex-parte order passed by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi, for the assessment year 2018-19. The appellant argued that they were not notified of the proceedings due to notices being sent to the email of a former employee, leading to a delay in filing the appeal by 280 days. The Tribunal found the reasons for the delay convincing and allowed the appeal, directing a fresh examination of the case by the CIT(A).

• Counselvise Citation: [2025] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 792929 (ITAT-RAJKOT)
• Duration Of Justice: 16 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 22-09-2025
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: DB
• Assessment Year: 2018-2019
• Appeal Filed On: 06-09-2025
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act, 1961
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: ABHIMANYU SINGH YADAV; LD.
• Assessee Lawyers: DEVINA PATEL; LD
• Keywords: Condonation of delay; Set aside; Opportunity of being heard; Reasonable cause; Principle of natural justice
• Section: 143(3)

Judgement Text

" आयकरअपीलीयअिधकरण,राजकोटɊायपीठ,राजकोट। IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, “SMC” RAJKOT BENCH, RAJKOT BEFORE DR. ARJUN LAL SAINI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER आयकरअपीलसं/.ITA No. 560/RJT/2025 Ǔनधा[रणवष[ / Assessment Year: 2018-19 Shri Sardar Patel Sarafi Sahkari Mandali Ltd. Sardar Chowk, Gokul Para, Bagasara - 365440 PAN No.: AAJAS9766K Vs. Income Tax Officer, wd – 3(1)(4), Aayakar Bhavan, Race Course Ring Road, Rajkot – 360001 (अपीलाथȸ/assessee) : (Ĥ×यथȸ/Respondent) Ǔनधा[ǐरतीकȧओरसे/Assessee by : Ms. Devina Patel, Ld.AR राजèवकȧओरसे/Revenue by : Shri Abhimanyu Singh Yadav, Ld. Sr. DR सुनवाईकȧतारȣख /Date of Hearing : 18/09/2025 घोषणाकȧतारȣख /Date of Pronouncement : 22/09/2025 ORDER Per, Dr. Arjun Lal Saini, AM: The present appeal has been filed by the Assessee, against the order passed by the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeal), National Faceless Appeal, Centre (NFAC), Delhi [hereinafter referred to as “CIT(A)”] dated 27.09.2024 arising in the matter of assessment order passed u/s.143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (here-in-after referred to as “the Act”) relevant to the Assessment Year 2018-19. Printed from counselvise.com ITA No. 560/RJT/2025 Sardar Patel Sarafi Sahkari Mandali Ltd. 2 2. The appeal filed by the assessee is barred by limitation by 280 days. The assessee has moved a petition requesting the Bench to condone of delay. The contents of petition for condonation of delay, are as follows; “That all notices issued during the course of CIT(A) proceedings were sent onemail address: \"[e-mail]\" (as reflected in E-filing portal), which pertained to one of the employees of the Appellant-society who had resigned from the Society on 12-11-2021. Thus, all notices were issued on the e-mail id of the ex- employee, who neither forwarded nor informed the Appellant about the issuance of the said notices. Thus, the Appellant was not aware about notices issued by the CIT(A) and also about the passing of order u/s 250 of the Act dated 27-09-2024. That the email id provided in the return of income filed for the year was\"[e-mail] and [e-mail]\" and that email id provided in E-filing Portal was \"[e-mail]\". However, all notices u/s 250 were sent on email id of the ex-employee of the Appellant-society i.e. \"[e-mail]\" and not on any other e-mail ids mentioned above. That thereafter, the appellant was also not aware about the passing of order u/s 250 dated 27-09-2024 by the Commissioner (Appeals), NFAC as it was not received on the updated e-mail id communicated by the Appellant on the E-filing portal i.e. on \"[e-mail]\". That thereafter when the tax consultant of the Appellant logged into E-filing portal sometime in August 2025, he found that order u/s 250 of the Act has already been passed on 27-09-2024. That thereafter, the Appellant was advised by his tax consultant to approach a tribunal tax practitioner in Rajkot and decide further course of action. That thereafter it took quite some time in the process to decide and appoint a tax counsel appearing before Income-tax Appellate Tribunal in Rajkot. That thereafter all required documents were sent to Tribunal counsel in Rajkot who prepared the appeal memo and papers and signatures, payment of appeal fee was made and then the present appeal to the Hon'ble Tribunal was filed on 06/09/2025. It is humbly submitted that the delay of 283 days in filing the appeal took place for a sufficient cause, with no intention to make the delay and no latches on the part of the Appellant. Therefore, in view of above facts of the Appellant, it is prayed that since the aforesaid reasons constitute sufficient/reasonable cause for the delay in filing the appeal, the delay may kindly be condoned in the interest of justice and appeal may kindly be allowed to be admitted.” Printed from counselvise.com ITA No. 560/RJT/2025 Sardar Patel Sarafi Sahkari Mandali Ltd. 3 3. Based on the contents of the petition for condonation of delay, the Ld. Counsel submitted that assessee has sufficient cause that all notices during the appellate proceedings, were delivered on the e-mail-id of ex-employee, who did not forward the information/papers to the assessee, therefore, such delay has occurred and as the assessee explained the reasons for delay, therefore, delay should be condoned, in the interest of justice. 4. On the other hand, the Ld. DR for the revenue submitted that assessee has failed to explain sufficient cause for condonation of delay, therefore, delay should not be condoned. 5. I have heard both the parties and perused the material available on record. A perusal of the affidavit gives me an impression of existence of mitigation circumstances to enable me to exercise my discretion in favour of the assessee. I note that the assessee has explained the sufficient cause to condone the delay and the reason explained in the petition for condonation of delay are convincing in nature, therefore, I condone the delay. 6. On merit, 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 Ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted that during the appellate proceedings, the notices were not served on the assessee, therefore, the assessee could not appear and file required documents and details before the Ld.CIT(A), and as a result, the Ld.CIT(A) passed ex-parte order. The Ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted that now the assessee is ready with the all required documents and details Printed from counselvise.com ITA No. 560/RJT/2025 Sardar Patel Sarafi Sahkari Mandali Ltd. 4 which are to be submitted before the Ld.CIT(A), and hence matter may be remitted back to the file of the Ld.CIT(A) for fresh adjudication. 7. On the other hand, the ld. DR for the Revenue did not raise any objection if the matter is restored back to the file of the Ld. CIT(A) for fresh adjudication. 8. I have heard both the parties and carefully gone through the submission put forth on behalf of the assessee along with the documents furnished and the case laws relied upon, and perused the fact of the case including the findings of the ld CIT(A) and other materials brought on record. I note that in the assessee’s case under consideration, the assessment was carried out u/s 143(3) the Act and the impugned order passed by the ld. CIT(A), is an ex parte order and non-speaking order, therefore, I do not wish to make any comments on the merits of the grounds raised by the assessee. 9. Considering the above facts, I note that assessee has not given sufficient opportunity of being heard and could not plead his case successfully before the ld. CIT(A). 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 his 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 de novo 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 Printed from counselvise.com ITA No. 560/RJT/2025 Sardar Patel Sarafi Sahkari Mandali Ltd. 5 afresh on merits. For statistical purposes, the appeal of the assessee is treated as allowed. 10. In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes. Order is pronounced in the open court on 22/09/2025. Sd/- (DR. A.L. SAINI) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER राजकोट/Rajkot (True Copy) िदनांक/ Date : 22/09/2025 Copy of the order forwarded to :  The assessee  The Respondent  CIT  The CIT(A)  DR, ITAT, RAJKOT  Guard File /True co By order Assistant Registrar/Sr. PS/PS ITAT, Rajkot Printed from counselvise.com "