SMT DAKUBEN SAREMALJI SANCHETI NADOL CHARITABLE TRUST,MUMBAI vs. NATIONAL FACELESS APPEAL CENTRE (NFAC), DELHI, MUMBAI

The orders passed by the Ld. Lower authorities are bad The orders passed by the Ld. Lower authorities are bad The orders passed by the Ld. Lower authorities are bad in law and bad in facts. in law and bad in facts.

The Ld. CIT(A) have grossly erred in passing ex The Ld. CIT(A) have grossly erred in passing ex-parte The Ld. CIT(A) have grossly erred in passing ex order without giving adequate & reasonable opportunity order without giving adequate & reasonable opportunity order without giving adequate & reasonable opportunity of being heard. of being heard. 3. The Ld. CIT(A) has grossly erred in holding that The Ld. CIT(A) has grossly erred in holding that The Ld. CIT(A) has grossly erred in holding that appellant did not comply with the notices issued & he appellant did not comply with the notices issued & he appellant did not comply with the notices issued & he has further erred in passing the appellate order ex- has further erred in passing the appellate order ex has further erred in passing the appellate order ex parte. 4. The Ld. Lower authorities have grossly erred in making The Ld. Lower authorities have grossly erred in making The Ld. Lower authorities have grossly erred in making an addition of Rs.1,20,11,455/ an addition of Rs.1,20,11,455/- by way of prima facie by way of prima facie adjustment u/s 143(1) of the I.T. adjustment u/s 143(1) of the I.T. Act, 1961. Reasons Act, 1961. Reasons assigned for impugned addition are wrong & contrary to assigned for impugned addition are wrong & contrary to assigned for impugned addition are wrong & contrary to the evidence on record. the evidence on record. 5. The intimation issued and upheld by the Ld. CIT(A) is The intimation issued and upheld by the Ld. CIT(A) is The intimation issued and upheld by the Ld. CIT(A) is void ab initio in view of decision of the Hon’ble Supreme void ab initio in view of decision of the Hon’ble void ab initio in view of decision of the Hon’ble Court in the case of cognizance for extension of Court in the case of cognizance for extension of Court in the case of cognizance for extension of limitation, In re. 432 ITR 206 (SC) limitation, In re. 432 ITR 206 (SC) 6. Having regard to the facts of the case, the provisions of Having regard to the facts of the case, the provisions of Having regard to the facts of the case, the provisions of law & judicial propositions, impugned additions are law & judicial propositions, impugned additions are law & judicial propositions, impugned additions are wholly untenable in law. wholly untenable in law. 2. Briefly stated facts of Briefly stated facts of the case are that the assessee is a public the case are that the assessee is a public charitable trust and filed its return of income for the year under charitable trust and filed its return of income for the year under charitable trust and filed its return of income for the year under consideration on 27.03.2021, as against extended due date up to consideration on 27.03.2021, as against extended due date up to consideration on 27.03.2021, as against extended due date up to 15.02.2021, the relevant forms prescribed under the Income Tax 15.02.2021, the relevant forms prescribed under the Income Tax 15.02.2021, the relevant forms prescribed under the Income Tax Rules i.e. Form No. 10B in Form 10 in relation to accumulation of . 10B in Form 10 in relation to accumulation of . 10B in Form 10 in relation to accumulation of income were also not filed by the assessee before the due date of the income were also not filed by the assessee before the due date of the income were also not filed by the assessee before the due date of the filing of the return of income. Therefore, while processing the return filing of the return of income. Therefore, while processing the return filing of the return of income. Therefore, while processing the return of income u/s 143(1) of the Income of income u/s 143(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (in short ‘the Act tax Act, 1961 (in short ‘the Act’) Central Central Central Processing Processing Processing Centre Centre Centre (CPC) (CPC) (CPC) computed computed computed income income income of of of Rs.1,20,11,455/- taxable without giving any benefit of the taxable without giving any benefit of the taxable without giving any benefit of the application of the income to the extent of 15% of the income application of the income to the extent of 15% of the income application of the income to the extent of 15% of the income accumulated or said part for specific purposes u/s 11(2) of the Act. accumulated or said part for specific purposes u/s 11(2) of the Act. accumulated or said part for specific purposes u/s 11(2) of the Act.

Before us, the Ld. Counsel of the assessee submitted that due Before us, the Ld. Counsel of the assessee submitted that due Before us, the Ld. Counsel of the assessee submitted that due to technical problems of computer software at the end of the to technical problems of computer software at the end of the to technical problems of computer software at the end of the assessee trust no compliance of the notices could be made. The Ld. assessee trust no compliance of the notices could be ma assessee trust no compliance of the notices could be ma Counsel also submitted that it was a period of the Counsel also submitted that it was a period of the Covid Pandemic Covid Pandemic and thus also no compliance could be made of the notices issued by and thus also no compliance could be made of the notices issued by and thus also no compliance could be made of the notices issued by the Ld. CIT(A). He submitted that the assessee is willing to co- the Ld. CIT(A). He submitted that the assessee is willing to co the Ld. CIT(A). He submitted that the assessee is willing to co operate in proceedings before the Ld. CIT(A) an operate in proceedings before the Ld. CIT(A) and accordingly appeal d accordingly appeal may be restored back for deciding afresh. may be restored back for deciding afresh.

In our opinion since the appeal has been decided ex In our opinion since the appeal has been decided ex In our opinion since the appeal has been decided ex-parte without taking into consideration the submission of the assessee without taking into consideration the submission of the assessee without taking into consideration the submission of the assessee and the assessee is willing to co and the assessee is willing to co-operate therefore in the interes operate therefore in the interest of substantial justice we feel it appropriate to restore this appeal back substantial justice we feel it appropriate to restore this appeal back substantial justice we feel it appropriate to restore this appeal back to the Ld. CIT(A) for deciding afresh after taking into consideration to the Ld. CIT(A) for deciding afresh after taking into consideration to the Ld. CIT(A) for deciding afresh after taking into consideration

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes.