SRI ANJANEYA SWAMY MATTU SOMESHWARA SWAMY DEVALAYA SAMITHI,HASSAN vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 1 & TPS, HASSAN

PDF · subscribers
ITA 607/BANG/2026Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore10 August 2026AY 2023-245 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal condoned the 44-day delay in filing the appeal before the CIT(A) and admitted the appeal. The Tribunal found that the assessment under Section 143(1) had not properly considered the assessee's claim for exemption under Section 11.

What were the facts?

The assessee's appeal before the CIT(A) was dismissed due to a 44-day delay. The assessee, a trust managed by individuals from a rural background, claimed a lack of email facility and reliance on an accountant caused the delay. The ITAT considered the explanation plausible.

What were the issues?

Whether the delay in filing the appeal before the CIT(A) was justifiable and whether the assessment under Section 143(1) correctly considered the assessee's claim for exemption under Section 11.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 143(1),Section 11,Section 250,Section 249(3),Section 12A

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “SMC’’BENCH: BANGALORE

Before: SHRI WASEEM AHMED & SHRI KESHAV DUBEY

For Appellant: CA Tarun Kothari, A.R
For Respondent: Shri Ganesh R. Ghale, Standing counsel for the department
Hearing: 01.06.2026Pronounced: 10.08.2026

PER KESHAV DUBEY, JUDICIAL MEMBER:

This appeal at the instance of the assessee is directed against the order of the ld. Addl./JCIT(A)-1, Ahmedabad dated 01.01.2026 vide DIN & Order No. ITBA/APL/S/250/2025-26/1084327558(1) passed u/s. 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short “the Act”) for the assessment year 2023-24.

2.

The assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal:- 1. The order of the authorities below in so far as it is against the appellant is opposed to law, equity and weight of evidence, probabilities, facts and circumstances of the case.

2.

The appellant denies itself liable to be assessed to total income of Rs.19,82,650/- for the assessment year 2023-24 on the facts and circumstances of the case.

ITA No.607/Bang/2026 Sri Anjaneya Swamy Mattu Someshwara Swamy Devalaya Samithi, Hassan Page 2 of 5 3. The learned CIT(A) is not justified in dismissing the appeal on delay of 44 days, on the facts and circumstances of the case. 4. The (earned CIT has failed to appreciate that there existed sufficient cause for the delay in filing the appeal and ought to have condoned the delay, on the facts and circumstances of the case. 5. The intimation passed under section 143(1) of the Act is without jurisdiction on the facts and circumstances of the case. 6. The learned Assessing Officer has erred in law in making adjustments under section 143(1), surpassing limited scope to carry out prima facie adjustments and arithmetical corrections and consequently the adjustments made are required to be deleted. 7. Without prejudice, tax is to be levied only on net income & not on gross receipts, on the facts and circumstances of the case.

8.

It is a settled proposition of law that 'consent cannot confer Jurisdiction' on the facts and circumstances of the case. 9. The appellant denies the liability to pay interest under section 234 of the Act in view of the fact that there is no liability to additional tax as determined by the learned assessing officer. Without prejudice the rater period and on what quantum the interest has been levied is not discernible from the order and hence deserves to be cancelled on the facts and circumstances of the case.

10.

The appellant craves [eave to add, alter, delete or substitute any of the grounds urged above.

11.

In view of the above and other grounds that may be urged at the time of the hearing of the- appeal the appellant prays_ that the appeal may allowed and appropriate relief be granted in the interest on justice and equity.

3.

At the outset, the ld. A.R. of the assessee drew our attention to the order of ld. Addl/JCIT(A) and submitted that the ld. Addl/JCIT(A) dismissed the appeal of the assessee by not condoning the short delay of 44 days solely on the ground that the explanation offered by the assessee though couched in sympathetic terms falls significantly short of the statutory threshold of “Sufficient cause” required u/s. 249(3) of the Act. Before us, the ld. A.R. of the assessee also drew our attention to an application for

ITA No.607/Bang/2026 Sri Anjaneya Swamy Mattu Someshwara Swamy Devalaya Samithi, Hassan Page 3 of 5 condonation of delay which is also reproduced by ld. Addl/JCIT(A) in his order and vehemently submitted that the assessee Trust being managed by persons who are from rural background and also do not have working of e-mail facility and completely relies on an accountant and services of a professional for its tax compliances. It is further submitted that the e-mail was newly created for the purpose of registration on the e-filing portal and thereafter it was not used and the credentials are also not available due to efflux of time. The assessee received an e-mail on 08/01/2025 wherein it was proposed that the refund will be adjusted against the outstanding demand and thereafter the assessee approached its professional for further course of action which result in a delay of 44 days in filing the appeal before the ld. Addl/JCIT(A).

3.1 Having heard the ld. Council for the assessee as well as ld.D.R., it is perceived that the explanation offered by the assessee is plausible and sufficient cause has been demonstrated by the assessee which prevented them in filing the appeal within the prescribed period before the ld. Addl/JCIT(A). Accordingly, we are inclined to condone the short delay of 44 days before the ld. Addl/JCIT(A) and admit the appeal for adjudication.

4.

Now having condone the delay, we take note of the fact that the CPC while passing the intimation u/s. 143(1) of the Act on 29/10/2024 for the AY 2023-24 had treated the entire gross receipts of the assessee amounting to Rs.19,82,647/- as taxable income neither allowing any deduction for application/ expenditures nor considering the claim of exemption u/s. 11 of the Act. The contention of the ld. AR of the assessee is that the assessee trust had filed application for condonation of delay u/s. 12A of the Act in filing the Form No.10A belatedly by 645 days which is still pending for disposal. Further, it is submitted that the

ITA No.607/Bang/2026 Sri Anjaneya Swamy Mattu Someshwara Swamy Devalaya Samithi, Hassan Page 4 of 5 assessee being a charitable trust, only the net income after allowing deduction towards application and expenditures can be brought to tax as per the provisions of the law.

4.1 In our considered view these aspects require proper verification of the facts including the eligibility of the assessee for claiming exemption u/s. 11 of the Act after taking into consideration the outcome of the condonation application filed by the assessee on 06/04/2026 vide transaction Id. FOS008865414596, the nature of receipts including corpus donations, and the application/ expenditures incurred by the assessee in accordance with the law. In our considered opinion, these aspects have not been examined either by the CPC or by ld. Addl/JCIT(A), since the first appeal itself was dismissed by not condoning the delay.

5.

Accordingly, in the interest of justice, equity and fair play, we deem it fit and proper to remit the entire issue in dispute to the file of the AO to decide a fresh in accordance with law. The AO is directed to verify the claim of the assessee u/s. 11 of the Act by considering the outcome of the condonation application filed by the assessee on 06/04/2026 vide transaction Id. FOS008865414596, the nature of receipts including corpus donations, and the application/ expenditures in accordance with the law. We further direct the AO that in case the assessee is found not to be eligible for exemption u/s. 11 of the Act, then only the net taxable income to be computed in accordance with the provisions of the Act after allowing admissible deduction towards the expenditures/ applications. Needless to say, reasonable opportunity of being heard must be granted to the assessee. The assessee is also directed to co-operate in the proceeding and furnish all the necessary details in support of its claim. It is ordered accordingly.

ITA No.607/Bang/2026 Sri Anjaneya Swamy Mattu Someshwara Swamy Devalaya Samithi, Hassan Page 5 of 5

6.

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes

Order pronounced in the open court on 10th Aug, 2026

Sd/- Sd/- (Waseem Ahmed) (Keshav Dubey) Accountant Member Judicial Member

Bangalore, Dated 10th Aug, 2026. VG/SPS

Copy to:

1.

The Applicant 2. The Respondent 3. The CIT 4. The DR, ITAT, Bangalore. 5 Guard file By order

Asst. Registrar, ITAT, Bangalore.

More judgments on Section 11

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

Latest GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →