Loading judgment…
Facts
The assessee, a trust, claimed deduction under Section 11 instead of exemption under Section 10(25)(iv) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The CPC rejected the claim, and a rectification petition under Section 154 was also rejected. The CIT(A) dismissed the appeal ex-parte due to the assessee's non-appearance.
Held
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal and admitted it for decision on merits. The ex-parte order of the CIT(A) was set aside, and the appeal was restored to the CIT(A) for denovo adjudication after providing the assessee with a reasonable opportunity of being heard.
Key Issues
Whether the CIT(A) was justified in dismissing the appeal ex-parte, and if the assessee should be granted a fresh opportunity to present its case.
Sections Cited
11, 10(25)(iv), 154
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, DELHI BENCH “SMC”, DELHI
(A.Y.2018-19) Simon India Ltd. Staff Staff Superannuation Fund, A-36, Mehtab House, Mathura Road, Mohan CO Operative Industrial Estate, New Delhi 110044 ...... अपीलाथ�/Appellant PAN: AANTS-1979-D बनाम Vs. Assessing Officer No. 1, Range-47, ..... �ितवादी/Respondent Circle Exempt 1(1), Delhi 110052 अपीलाथ� �ारा/ Appellant by : None �ितवादी�ारा/Respondent by : Shri Manoj Kumar, Sr. DR सुनवाई क� ितिथ/ Date of hearing : 16/07/2025 घोषणा क� ितिथ/ Date of pronouncement : : 16/07/2025 आदेश/ORDER
PER VIKAS AWASTHY, JM:
This appeal by the assessee is directed against an ex-parte order of Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi [in short ‘the CIT(A)’] dated 17.12.2024, for Assessment Year 2018-19.
The appeal is time barred by 55 days. The assessee has filed an application supported by an affidavit citing reasons causing delay in filing of appeal. After perusal of the same, I am satisfied that delay in filing of appeal is not intentional, the delay has been caused for the reasons stated in application which appears to (AY 2018-19) be bonafide. Thus, delay of 55 days in filing of appeal is condoned and appeal is admitted for decision on merits.
The brief facts of the case as emanating from records are: The assessee is a Trust registered under Income Tax Act, 1961(hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’). The main object of the trust is to provide gratuity benefits to the employees of Simon India Ltd. in accordance with the Trust Deed. Purportedly, the assessee is eligible for exemption u/s.10(25)(iv) of the Act. The assessee filed its return of income for AY 2018-19 declaring total income of Rs.12,31,715/-. Inadvertently, the assessee claimed deduction u/s. 11 of the Act instead of exemption u/s. 10(25)(iv) of the Act. The assessee’s claim was rejected by Centralized Processing Centre (CPC). Thereafter, the assessee filed rectification petition u/s. 154 of the Act. However, that to was rejected by the CPC. The assessee carried the issue in appeal before the CIT(A). Since, despite notices none appeared on behalf of the assessee before the First Appellate Authority, the CIT(A) in an ex-parte proceedings dismissed appeal of the assessee.
Shri Manoj Kumar, representing the department vehemently defended the impugned order and prayed for dismissing appeal of the assessee. The ld. DR submitted that the assessee has itself admitted that wrong claim was made in the return of income, the CPC has rejected the same. The assessee thereafter filed rectification petition u/s. 154 of the Act claiming exemption u/s. 10(25)(iv) of the Act, the same was rightly rejected by the CPC as the said claim have either have been made in return of income or revised return of income. Instead, the assessee filed application for rectification u/s. 154 of the Act. In First Appellate proceedings (AY 2018-19) none appeared to represent the assessee despite service of several notices. Therefore, no further opportunity should be allowed to the assessee now.
Submissions made by ld. DR heard and written submissions filed on behalf of the assessee considered. A perusal of the impugned order shows that the CIT(A) had issued as many as 10 notices to the assessee, no reply or any submissions were furnished by the assessee before the CIT(A). Considering entire facts of the case and in the interest of justice, I deem it appropriate to restore this appeal back to the CIT(A) for denovo adjudication on merits after affording reasonable opportunity of making submissions to the assessee, in accordance with law.
The CIT(A) shall serve notice to the assessee on the email address provided in Form No.
If the assessee wishes to receive notice on any other email id, the same shall be provided to the CIT(A) within 45 days from the date of receipt of this order.
The assessee shall respond to the notice(s) served by the CIT(A), without fail.