Loading judgment…
No AI summary yet for this case.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, JABALPUR BENCH, JABALPUR
Before: SHRI N.R.S. GANESAN & SHRI SANJAY ARORA
Shri Sajjan Singh Shiksha vs. Commissioner of Income Tax Samiti, Rewa (Exemptions), Bhopal [PAN: AAIAS 9997H] (Appellant ) (Respondent) Appellant by Shri Anupam Beri, CA Respondent by Smt. Neeraja Pradhan, CIT-DR Date of hearing 05/02/2021 Date of pronouncement 05/02/2021 ORDER
Per Sanjay Arora, AM:
This is an Appeal by the Assessee against the Order under section 119(2)(b) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (‘the Act’ hereinafter) read with Rule 12(2) and the Income Tax Rules, 1962 (‘the Rules’ hereinafter) by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemptions), Bhopal (‘CIT(E)’ for short) dated 08.7.2020.
The facts of the case, to the extent relevant, are that the assessee, a Society registered under section 12A of the Act, filed its’ return of income for the relevant assessment year, i.e., AY 2017-18, on 14.12.2017, also filing along with the audit report in Form-10B. The due date of filing the return of income for the said year being 07.11.2017 (extended from 30/9/2017), the same was admittedly furnished belatedly. The assessee being unable to furnish any genuine reason for the said delay, its’ application for condonation of delay was rejected by the ld. CIT(E). Aggrieved, the assessee is in appeal.
Shri Sajjan Singh Shiksha Samiti v. CIT (E) (AY 2017-18) 2. Before us, while the ld. counsel for the assessee, Shri Beri, was unable to state any reason for the delay, he would submit that the Audit Report (in Form 10B) had been duly obtained by the assessee in time, i.e., on 15.5.2017. Further, the assessee’s return for the said year was not taken up for scrutiny assessment. No prejudice as such stands caused to the Revenue by the delayed filing of the return, which has in fact been accepted at the returned income of nil. The ld. CIT-DR, Ms. Pradhan, would, on the other hand, submit that the Audit Report has to be both obtained and furnished by the due date of filing the return, and its subsequent filing would be of little consequence inasmuch as the breach of the relevant provision gets occurred on the non-filing thereof in time, so that the only question that survives is the existence of a reasonable and bona fide cause for the delay, which remains unexplained. In fact, the report having been obtained on 15.5.2017, there ought to be strong reasons for its non-filing even by 07.11.2017, while none has been stated.
We have heard the parties and perused the material on record. At the outset, we are unable to fathom, and neither was the assessee’s counsel able to explain us as to how an appeal against the impugned order lies before the Tribunal, whose jurisdiction extends to orders as well as the matters specified in section 253 of the Act, and which bears no reference to an order under section 119(2)(b) of the Act. The same is an administrative order, against which, where aggrieved, recourse would lie on the administrative side. In the facts of the present case, as we observe, the assessee is not aggrieved inasmuch as the return has been accepted at the returned income (of nil) and, further, not subject to the verification proceedings under the Act. This may perhaps be on account of the applicability of Circular 10 of 2019 – not on record, stated to provide for an automatic condonation in respect of AYs. 2016-17 and 2017-18. The occasion to plead so would arise only where some grievance is caused to the assesse due to the impugned administrative order, which is to be, in that case, pursued on the 2 | P a g e Shri Sajjan Singh Shiksha Samiti v. CIT (E) (AY 2017-18) administrative side. We have clarified this only as a matter of abundant caution; the Tribunal, as stated, having no locus standi in the matter. It is rather unfortunate that neither side brought the fact of the impugned order being u/s. 119 to our notice, which came to light only at the time of dictating the order after being heard on 02/2/2020, necessitating reposting the appeal for hearing again on 05/2/2020 to clarify this aspect as well as hear the parties thereon. Needless to add, no explanation for filing of the appeal could be furnished by Sh. Beri on the Bench observing the impugned order as being not an appealable order. We decide accordingly.