SOOD SABHA,SHIMLA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, EXEMPTIONS WARD SOLAN

आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण,च�ीगढ़ �ायपीठ “बी” , च�ीगढ़ IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, CHANDIGARH BENCH “B”, CHANDIGARH HEARING THROUGH: HYBRID MODE �ी लिलत कुमार, �ाियक सद� एवं �ी मनोज कुमार अ�वाल, लेखा सद� BEFORE: SHRI. LALIET KUMAR, JM & SHRI. MANOJ KUMAR AGGARWAL, AM आयकर अपील सं./ ITA Nos. 1081 , 1090 & 1087 /Chd/ 2026 िनधा�रण वष� / Assessment Years : 2012-13, 2015-16 & 2016-17 Sood Sabha बनाम The ITO Exemption Ram Bazar, Shimla Ward Solan, Himachal Pradesh Himachal Pradesh-171001 �ायी लेखा सं./PAN NO: AABTS4060M अपीलाथ�/Appellant ��थ�/Respondent िनधा�रती की ओर से/Assessee by : Shri Rajeev Sood, C.A (Virtual) राज� की ओर से/ Revenue by : Dr. Ranjit Kaur, Addl. CIT, Sr. DR सुनवाई की तारीख/Date of Hearing : 15/07/2026 उदघोषणा की तारीख/Date of Pronouncement : 03/08/2026 आदेश/Order PER LALIET KUMAR, J.M: All the above appeals have been filed by the Assessee against the respective orders of Ld. CIT(A)’s. 2. Since all the above appeals were heard together and issues involved in all the above appeals are common and were heard together therefore they are being disposed of by this consolidated order for the sake of convenience and brevity. 3. We shall take up the appeal in ITA No. 1081/Chd/2026 for Assessment Year 2012- 13 as a lead case for discussion. 4. The present appeal has been preferred by the assessee against the order passed by the Ld. CIT (Appeals)/JCIT(A) under section 250 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, arising from the assessment framed under section 143(3) read with section 148 for Assessment Year 2012-13. The assessment had been reopened on the premise that the assessee was not holding a valid registration under section 12AA and, consequently, the Assessing Officer denied exemption under sections 11 and 12 and treated corpus donations amounting to Rs.18,84,067/- as taxable receipts. The Assessing Officer held

that the said amount ought to have been credited to the Income and Expenditure Account instead of the Balance Sheet and, therefore, made the impugned addition. 5. The assessee carried the matter in appeal before the learned CIT(A). The appellate order records that several notices issued during the course of appellate proceedings remained unattended and, in the absence of any compliance or documentary evidence, the learned CIT(A) concurred with the findings of the Assessing Officer and dismissed the appeal. 6. The present appeal before the Tribunal has been filed with delay. Along with the appeal, the assessee has filed a duly sworn affidavit explaining the reasons for the delay. In the affidavit, the Secretary of the Society has deposed that neither the Society nor its authorised representative had received any notice of hearing or copy of the appellate order; that the Society became aware of the appellate order only subsequently while checking the income-tax portal during routine compliance; and that the delay was neither intentional nor deliberate but occurred due to non-receipt of notices and communications. The deponent has further stated that immediately upon gaining knowledge of the appellate order, prompt steps were taken to file the present appeal before the Tribunal. 7. The Ld. AR submitted that the delay in filing the appeal deserves to be condoned since the same was occasioned by bona fide circumstances beyond the control of the assessee. It was argued that the assessee had never intended to abandon its statutory remedy and the delay occurred solely because no effective notice of hearing or copy of the appellate order had been received. Reliance was placed upon the affidavit filed before the Tribunal explaining the entire sequence of events. 7.1 On merits, the learned AR submitted that the impugned appellate order is virtually an ex parte order passed without adjudicating the issues on merits. It was contended that the learned CIT(A) merely affirmed the assessment order for want of compliance without examining the documentary evidence regarding the charitable nature of the assessee, its historical registration under section 12A, its entitlement to

exemption under sections 11 and 12, and the nature of corpus donations received during the year. 7.2 It was further submitted that the Society has sufficient documentary evidence to substantiate its claim that it is a charitable institution and an exempt entity. The learned AR prayed that one final opportunity may be granted to the assessee to place all relevant material before the appellate authority and requested that the matter be restored to the file of the learned CIT(A) for adjudication afresh on merits. 7.3 The Ld. DR supported the orders of the authorities below. It was submitted that adequate opportunities had been afforded during the appellate proceedings and despite repeated notices, the assessee failed to avail the same. Therefore, according to the learned DR, the learned CIT(A) was justified in deciding the appeal on the basis of the material available on record. 7.4 However, the learned DR fairly submitted that if the Tribunal is inclined to restore the matter, appropriate directions may be issued requiring the assessee to fully cooperate in the appellate proceedings and furnish all documentary evidence in support of its claim. 8. We have heard the rival submissions and carefully perused the material available on record. 8.1 At the outset, we have considered the application for condonation of delay supported by the affidavit filed by the Secretary of the assessee-Society. The reasons explained therein constitute sufficient cause within the meaning of the settled principles governing condonation of delay. It is evident that the delay was neither deliberate nor intentional and the assessee has satisfactorily explained the circumstances which prevented it from approaching the Tribunal within the prescribed period. Accordingly, the delay in filing the present appeal is condoned and the appeal is admitted for adjudication. 8.2 Coming to the merits of the appeal, we notice that the learned CIT(A) dismissed the appeal primarily on account of non-compliance and in the absence of supporting material from the assessee. The issues involved relate to the charitable status of the

Society, its entitlement to exemption under sections 11 and 12, and the taxability of corpus donations. These issues require proper appreciation of documentary evidence and cannot be satisfactorily adjudicated without granting an effective opportunity to the assessee. 8.3 Considering the totality of the facts and circumstances of the case, and in the interest of substantial justice, we deem it appropriate to set aside the impugned appellate order and restore the matter to the file of the learned CIT(A) for adjudication afresh in accordance with law. 8.4 The learned CIT(A) shall afford adequate and reasonable opportunity of hearing to the assessee and shall pass a speaking and reasoned order after considering all documentary evidence and submissions that may be produced. 8.5 At the same time, we make it abundantly clear that the assessee is equally under an obligation to cooperate with the appellate proceedings. The assessee is directed to remain vigilant and prompt in responding to every notice issued by the learned CIT(A). The assessee shall furnish all documentary evidence and material in support of its claim that it is entitled to exemption as a charitable institution under the provisions of the Income-tax Act. In case the assessee again fails to furnish the requisite information or does not cooperate in the proceedings, the learned CIT(A) shall be at liberty to decide the appeal on the basis of the material available on record and in accordance with law. Accordingly, the impugned order is set aside and the matter is restored to the file of the learned CIT(A) for fresh adjudication after providing adequate opportunity of hearing to the assessee. 9. In the result, the appeal of the assessee is treated as allowed for statistical purposes. 10. Since we have adjudicated the issues involved in the lead appeal in ITA No.1081/Chd/2026 in the foregoing paragraphs, and the facts, issues involved, grounds raised and the reasons recorded by the Ld. CIT(A) in the connected appeal bearing ITA No.1090/Chd/2026 & 1087/Chd/2026 are identical and arise out of the same set of facts and circumstances, our findings and conclusions rendered in the lead appeal shall apply mutatis mutandis to the present appeal as well.

Sd/- Sd/- मनोज कुमार अ�वाल लिलत कुमार (MANOJ KUMAR AGGARWAL) (LALIET KUMAR) लेखा सद�/ ACCOUNTANT MEMBER �ाियक सद� /JUDICIAL MEMBER AG आदेश की �ितिलिप अ�ेिषत/ Copy of the order forwarded to : 1. अपीलाथ�/ The Appellant 2. ��थ�/ The Respondent 3. आयकर आयु�/ CIT 4. आयकर आयु� (अपील)/ The CIT(A) 5. िवभागीय �ितिनिध, आयकर अपीलीय आिधकरण, च�ीगढ़/ DR, ITAT, CHANDIGARH 6. गाड� फाईल/ Guard File

BY ORDER, ASSISTANT REGISTRAR INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL KENDRIYA SADAN, SECTOR-9A CHANDIGARH