JOTEKAMAL VIDYABHARATI,MURSHIDABAD vs. ITO, WARD 42(1), , MURSHIDABAD

The only issue pressed at the time of hearing is contained in ground nos. 3 and 5, which is against the order of ld. CIT (A) upholding the addition of ₹27,09,505/- as made by the ld. AO/ CPC in the intimation passed u/s 143(1) of the Act. The assessee has also challenged finding of the ld. CIT (A) that there is a delay in appeal of 514 days.

The assessee also moved a rectification application, which was rejected by the ld. AO and hence, the matter was taken up before the ld. CIT (A). The ld. CIT (A) without condoning the delay of 514 days, which as a matter of fact was not a delay in filing the appeal but the wrong mentioning of date of order and date of service of order of the ld. AO.

After hearing the rival contentions and perusing the materials available on record, we find that the assessee is a educational imitation and has been engaged in the educational activities. During the year the assessee filed the return of income showing the total income at ₹ nil, however, the ld. AO/ CPC while processing the return of income rejected the claim of the assessee u/s 10(23C)/11 of the Act. The assessee moved a rectification application which was also rejected and thereafter the assessee took the matter before the ld. CIT (A) who, also dismissed the appeal without deciding the merit by noting that the appeal of the assessee is barred by limitation. We have examined the form 35 and note that the date of order and date of service of order were wrongly mentioned and there is in fact no delay in filing the appeal before the ld. CIT (A). Therefore, we are inclined to decide the issue without sending it back to the ld. CIT(A) as this is a open and shut

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed.