CAPITAL LAW COLLEGE,BHUBANESWAR vs. ITO, EXEMPTION WARD, BHUBANESWAR, BHUBANESWAR

Shri Rajat Kumar Kar Rajat Kumar Kar, ld AR appeared for the assessee and Shri the assessee and Shri S.C.Mohanty, Sr. S.C.Mohanty, Sr. DR appeared for the revenue.

The appeal is time barred by 41 days. The appeal is time barred by 41 days. The assessee has filed The assessee has filed condonation petition dated condonation petition dated 30.8.2024 supported by affidavit stating the 30.8.2024 supported by affidavit stating the reasons that the first appella the first appellate order dated 21.5.2024 was served in the te order dated 21.5.2024 was served in the P a g e 1 | 4 email id of the previous auditor. As there was change in the auditor by the College, the previous auditor did not inform the passing of first appellate order. It was in this backdrop that the assessee was unaware of the order of the first appellate order. When this fact came to the knowledge of the assessee, the appeal was prepared and filed with a delay of 41 days. It was requested to condone the delay and admit the appeal for adjudication. Ld Sr DR did not objection to the request of ld AR of the assessee.

It was submitted by ld AR that the assessee is a charitable trust solely existing for education since its inception on 12.5.1982 and claimed exemption of its income under section 10(23C)(iiiad) of the Act. It was the submission that the ld CIT(A) has dismissed the appeal of the assessee for non-representation by the assessee before him. It was the submission that as the aggregate annual receipts of the assessee during the assessment year under consideration being Rs.99,90,089/-, which is below Rs.1 crore, the assessee is eligible for exemption under section 10(23C)(iiiad) of the Act, and, therefore, the addition of Rs.32,42,320/- made by the AO is not sustainable in law. It was submitted that since the assessee is running educational institution and the income generated by the institution is not for the purpose of profit, the issue be restored to the file of the ld CIT(A) as the assessee could not substantiate its case by filing necessary documentary evidence.

In reply, ld Sr DR supported the orders of the AO and ld CIT(A).

I have considered the rival submissions. It is not disputed that the annual receipts of the assessee is below Rs.1 crores and is eligible for exemption u/s.10(23C)(iiiad) of the Act. A perusal of the order of the ld CIT(A) shows that the assessee has been provided multiple opportunities to represent its case before him but there was no compliance by the assessee. Therefore, due to non-representation, the ld CIT(A) was compelled to pass the exparte order and confirmed the addition made by the Assessing Officer. Now before the Tribunal, it was the request of ld AR that if an opportunity is granted, the assessee would be in a position to comply with the notices of the ld CIT(A) and substantiate its case with documentary evidence. In view of above and in the interest of justice, the issues in this appeal are restored to the file of the ld CIT(A) for adjudication afresh assessee after providing adequate opportunity to the assessee subject to cost of Rs.5,000/- (Rupees five thousand only) to be deposited within 60 days from the date of this order under the head “others” in ITNS challan 280 in the Account No.500 and same is to be filed before the ld CIT(A). In the event the cost is not paid, the order passed by the ld CIT(A) would stand confirmed.

In the result, appeal of the assessee stands partly allowed for statistical purposes.