GOSPEL ORDAINED DISCIPLES MISSION,KALYAN vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER EXEMPTION THANE, THANE

In appeal, it was contended that no notice was received by the appellant- assessee nor any opportunity of hearing was given. Section 272A(2)(h) of the Act restricts the quantum of penalty within the tax determined. It was contended that when the tax assessed was found to be Nil, there was no case made out for imposition of penalty.

It appears that there was a delay of 650 days in filing the appeal before the learned CIT(A), which was sought to be explained as under :

A perusal of the impugned order shows that although the learned CIT(A) has not adverted to the issue of delay, he has dismissed the appeal on merits on the ground that in the RoI, assessee has shown the gross total income as Rs.5,40,850/- and claimed deduction of the entire amount under Section 11 of the Act. Section 139(4A) of the Act requires the assessee to file the RoI when the income is in excess of maximum amount which is not chargeable to tax (without giving effect to the provisions of Section 11 and 12 of the Act). It was, therefore, found that the appellant having filed the RoI only on 18.03.2016, when the due date was 31.10.2015, there was

None appears for the appellant when the matter was called. The record shows that there was no appearance on behalf of the appellant even on 14.07.2026 and 24.07.2026 when notices were issued. Inspite of the same, today also there was no appearance on behalf of the appellant. The appeal is, therefore, taken up for disposal on merits. We have heard the learned DR. Perused record.

As per the office note, there is a delay of 477 days in filing the appeal. Significantly, in Form 36 at clause 11 the appellant has stated that there is no delay in filing the appeal, which is incorrect. No application for condonation of delay is filed. For this reason alone, the appeal is liable to be dismissed. However, we see that there is a finding recorded by the authorities below that there was a delay in filing the return although the income as returned exceeded the maximum amount which is not chargeable to tax (without giving effect to the provisions of Section 11 and 12 of the Act), which itself invites penalty. Although in the grounds of appeal, it is contended that the AO had not issued any notice which was received by the appellant, the same is against the record as the AO has clearly recorded that notice dated 19.08.2021 was issued to which there was no response or compliance. A further show cause notice was issued on 06.12.2021 requiring the assessee to show cause why the penalty should not be imposed, to which also there was no reply or any response filed. Thus, the impugned order does not suffer from any infirmity so as to require interference. The appeal stands dismissed.