DNYANKALA SANVARDHINI SANSTHA,PUNE vs. ITO EXEMPTION WARD 1(2), PUNE, PUNE

PDF · subscribers
ITA 794/PUN/2025Status: DisposedITAT Pune18 August 2026AY 2016-174 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The ITAT condoned the delay in filing the appeal before the CIT(A). Since the CIT(A) had not adjudicated on the merits, the ITAT restored all issues to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication.

What were the facts?

The assessee's appeal before the CIT(A) was dismissed due to delay. The assessee sought condonation of delay citing change in management and consultant's sickness. The ITAT considered these reasons and Supreme Court precedents for condoning delays.

What were the issues?

Whether the delay in filing the appeal before the CIT(A) should be condoned and whether the exemption under Section 11 should be granted.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 250,Section 11,Section 143(1)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, A BENCH, PUNE

Before: Dr. MANISH BORAD & SHRI VINAY BHAMORE

For Appellant: Smt Deepa Khare
For Respondent: Shri Rajesh Haladkar
Hearing: 06.08.2026Pronounced: 18.08.2026

PER DR. MANISH BORAD, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER :

This appeal at the instance of the assessee is directed against the order passed by Ld. Addl/JCIT(A)-1, Delhi dated 07.02.2025 framed u/s 250 of the Income Tax Act 1961 which is arising out of Intimation order passed u/s.143(1) of the Act dated 31.05.2018. 2 Dnyankala Sanvardhini Sanstha

2.

Assessee has raised following grounds of appeal:- “1. The Id CIT(A) erred in law and on facts in dismissing appeal by not condoning the delay when there was sufficient cause beyond the control of the appellant.

2.

The Id CIT(A) erred in law and on facts in not granting exemption u/s 11 when the there has been substantial compliance by the appellant.

3.

The appellant craves leave to add, alter, modify or substitute any ground of appeal at the time of hearing.”

3.

The grievance of the assessee is against not granting of exemption u/s 11 of the Act to the assessee Trust for A.Y. 2016-

17.4.

We have heard rival contentions and perused the record placed before us. Ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted that Ld. CIT(A) has dismissed the appeal by not condoning the delay in filing of the appeal. We have gone through the records as well as the reasons for delay and find that the same was mainly due to change of Management and sickness of the tax consultant and that the delay is not intentional. We therefore taking guidance of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Collector, Land Acquisition vs. Master Katiji and Others (1987) 167 ITR 471 Supreme Court (SC) &

5.

So far as merits of the case are concerned since there is no adjudication by Ld. CIT(A) on merits we restore all the issues raised in the instant appeal to the file Ld. CIT(A) for afresh adjudication as contemplated u/s 250(6) of the Act. Needless to mention that proper opportunity of hearing shall be given to the assessee. Assessee is also directed to remain vigilant and not to take adjournment unless otherwise required for reasonable cause. Effective grounds of appeal raised by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes.

6.

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

Order pronounced on 18th day of August, 2026. (VINAY BHAMORE) (MANISH BORAD) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Pune, Dated : 18th August, 2026. Neeta

Digitally signed Satish by Satish Kumar Kumar Madishetty Date: 2026.08.18 Madishetty 15:31:09 +05'30'

4 Dnyankala Sanvardhini Sanstha

आदेश की प्रनिललपप अग्रेपर्ि /Copy of the Order forwarded to: 1. अपीलार्थी / The Appellant. 2. प्रत्यर्थी / The Respondent.

3.

The Pr. CIT concerned. 4. विभागीय प्रतितिधि, आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण, "ए" बेंच, पुणे / DR, ITAT, "A" Bench, Pune. 5. गार्ड फाइल / Guard File. आदेशािुसार / BY ORDER, //// सहायक रजिस्ट्रार/

More judgments on Section 11

All 7,190 judgments and leading authorities on Section 11 →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →