A.D. EDUCATIONAL SOCIETY,C/O AKUL AGARWAL AND ASSCIATES vs. DCIT/ACIT(E)(C-2), CHANDIGARH

Aggrieved the assessee went in appeal before the CIT (Appeals) but did not get any relief as the CIT (Appeals) did not condone the delay of four and half months in filing the appeal before ld.CIT

In the present case, the assessment order under section 143(3) of the Act was passed by the DLC-CA-(170)(1) on 10.06.2021 for Assessment Year 2018-19. As recorded by the ld. CIT(A), the said order was served upon the assessee on 10.06.2021. In terms of section 249(2) of the Act, the appeal was required to be filed within 30 days from the date of service of the assessment order and, accordingly, the last date for filing the appeal was 10.07.2021. The assessee, however, filed the appeal on 01.12.2021, resulting in a delay of approximately four and a half months.

The ld. CIT(A) observed that the assessee, in Form No. 35, had not admitted any delay in filing the appeal and had not furnished reasons

2025 and 23.07.2025. 6. Vide notice dated 02.07.2025, the assessee was specifically required to clarify whether the appeal had been filed beyond the prescribed period of limitation and, in that event, to furnish the exact number of days of delay along with a detailed explanation and supporting evidence for seeking condonation of delay.

In response, the assessee filed submissions on 03.07.2025 and 25.07.2025. According to the ld. CIT(A), however, the assessee did not furnish a detailed explanation supported by evidence for the delay and reiterated the submissions made earlier.

The Id. CIT(A), relying upon various judicial precedents, The declined to condone the delay of approximately four and a half months. The assessee has challenged the aforesaid order and, inter alia, contended that the ld. CIT(A) was not justified in dismissing the appeal on the ground of delay and ought to have considered the explanation furnished by the assessee and adjudicated the issues

The ld. AR submitted that the assessee had participated in the appellate proceedings and had furnished responses to the notices issued by the ld. CIT(A). It was submitted that the matter deserves to be considered afresh after granting the assessee an effective opportunity to substantiate its explanation with the requisite

The ld. AR further submitted that the issues involved in the appeal also require consideration in the light of the decisions rendered by the Tribunal in the assessee’s own case for the earlier/subsequent assessment years, wherein the Tribunal had directed the authorities to examine the salary/remuneration drawn by the Managing Trustees/Directors/Principal of the Society having

It was submitted that the aforesaid decisions of the Tribunal in the assessee’s own case constitute an important and relevant consideration while deciding the issue for the year under consideration and that the ld. CIT(A), while deciding the appeal

The ld. AR accordingly prayed that the impugned order be set aside and the matter be restored to the file of the ld. CIT(A) for fresh adjudication in accordance with law after providing reasonable

The ld. Departmental Representative supported the order of the ld. CIT(A). It was submitted that the appeal had admittedly been filed beyond the prescribed period of limitation and that the assessee had failed to furnish a satisfactory explanation for the delay despite specific opportunities having been granted. It was accordingly

We have heard the rival submissions and perused the material available on record. It is undisputed that the assessment order under section 143(3) of the Act was passed on 10.06.2021 and, as recorded by the ld. CIT(A), was served upon the assessee on the same date.

In the facts and circumstances of the case, we are of the considered view that the ends of justice would be met if one more effective opportunity is granted to the assessee to _ properly substantiate its explanation for the delay by furnishing the requisite documents and evidence. At the same time, the assessee cannot claim any automatic right to condonation merely by virtue of this order. The explanation for delay shall have to be examined by the ld. CIT(A) in accordance with the provisions of law and the applicable judicial principles. Accordingly, we set aside the impugned order of the ld. CIT(A) and restore the matter to his file for fresh consideration. The ld. CIT(A) shall first examine the assessee’s explanation/application for condonation of delay, after affording reasonable and effective opportunity of being heard to the assessee and after considering such documents, evidence and explanations as may be furnished by the assessee.

If the delay is found fit to be condoned in accordance with law,

8 Considering the totality of the facts and circumstances, we are of the considered opinion that the issue requires fresh examination at the end of the Assessing Officer. Accordingly, while upholding the validity of the reassessment proceedings and dismissing Ground No. 1, we set aside the orders of the authorities below on the issue involved in Ground No. 2 and restore the matter to the file of the Assessing Officer with the direction to examine afresh the reasonableness or otherwise of the salary and interest paid to the persons specified under section 13(3) of the Act. The Assessing Officer shall independently examine the nature of services rendered by each specified person, their qualifications, experience, responsibilities and contribution to the institution, and thereafter determine whether the remuneration paid was reasonable by bringing on record appropriate contemporaneous comparable instances, prevailing market standards and remuneration paid by similarly placed educational institutions for rendering similar services. The Assessing Officer shall not merely rely upon or be influenced by the treatment accorded in the subsequent assessment years unless those orders also demonstrate a proper examination of the issue on the basis of contemporaneous evidence.

9 The assessee shall also furnish complete documentary evidence to establish that the remuneration and other payments made to the specified persons were reasonable, commensurate with the services actually rendered and justified having regard to the legitimate requirements of the institution. Needless to add, the Assessing Officer shall afford adequate opportunity of being heard to the assessee and thereafter decide the issue afresh in accordance with law by passing a reasoned and speaking order. Accordingly, Ground No. 1 is dismissed, Ground No. 2 is allowed for statistical purposes, whereas Ground Nos. 3 and 4 are dismissed as not pressed.

Accordingly, we direct the ld. CIT(A) to examine the issue relating to the salary/remuneration drawn by the Managing Trustees/Directors/Principal of the Society in the light of the directions reproduced hereinabove.

The assessee is directed to fully cooperate with the appellate proceedings and furnish all requisite information, documents and evidence within the time allowed by the ld. CIT(A). The assessee shall not seek unnecessary adjournments.

Since the matter is being restored to the file of the ld. CIT(A), we refrain from expressing any opinion on the merits of the grounds raised by the assessee, including the issue relating to salary/remuneration. All such issues are kept open for fresh

As an additional measure connected with the charitable/environmental activities of the assessee, the assessee is directed to undertake plantation of 500 trees at Yamuna Bank, Panipat, Samalkha site, managed and run by Hari Yamuna Sehyog

Needless to say, the observations made herein are confined to the issue of restoration of the matter and shall not be construed as an expression of opinion on the merits of the assessee’s appeal, the explanation for delay, or the issue relating to salary/remuneration. The ld. CIT(A) shall decide the matter afresh, independently and in accordance with law, after considering the material placed on record, the applicable judicial precedents, including the decisions of the Tribunal in the assessee’s own case, and after providing due and reasonable opportunity of hearing to the assessee.

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical