MAHARASHTRA VIDYARTHI SAHAYYAJK MANDAL,PUNE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, EXEMPTION, WARD-1(2), PUNE, PUNE

This is an appeal filed by the assessee directed against the order of the National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi [‘NFAC’] dated 16.03.2022 for the assessment year 2012-13.

At the outset, there is a delay in filing the present appeal by 449 days. The appellant filed an affidavit praying for condonation July, 2023 when the appellant trust had approached the then Tax Consultant to file the return of income, the Tax Consultant, namely, Shri Mahendra Pangare informed to the appellant trust that when he looked into the income tax portal of the assessee to check the AIS and 26AS statement in the context of filing the return of income for the assessment year 2023-24, he got to know that the NFAC passed an order for the assessment year 2012-13 on 16.03.2022. Immediately, thereafter the assessee had took the steps to file the appeal against the order of the NFAC with the above-mentioned delay. Thus, he agreed that the delay had occurred on account of factors which are beyond the control of the assessee. The appellant also filed an affidavit duly notarised from the said Tax Consultant, Shri Mahendra Pangare affirming the above facts. 3. On the other hand, ld. Sr. DR opposed the petition for condonation of delay. 4. I had carefully gone through the averments made in the affidavit for condonation of delay and find that the appellant explained the delay and the appellant was prevented from filing the appeal within the time by sufficient and reasonable cause. Accordingly, I am of the considered opinion that it is a fit case for condonation of delay. Accordingly, the delay is condoned. 5. Now, come to the merits of the case. Briefly, the facts of the case are that the appellant is a trust rendering educational activities. The appellant trust had not filed the regular Return of Income under the provisions of section 139 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (‘the Act’). On verification of the ITS data, it was found that the appellant trust had made a cash deposit of Rs.14,69,375/- with Canara Bank during the previous year relevant to the assessment year under consideration. Based on this information, the Assessing Officer formed an opinion that the income had escaped assessment of tax and, accordingly, issued a notice u/s 148 of the Act on 27.03.2019. The appellant trust neither complied with the said notice issued u/s 148 nor responded to the notices issued u/s 142(1) of the Act. In the circumstances, the Assessing Officer made the assessment u/s 144 of the Act by bringing to tax the cash deposit of