INDIA EVERY HOME CRUSADE PUBLICATION TRUST,CHENNAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, EXEMPTION WARD - 2, CHENNAI

The Assessee raised the following grounds of appeal : “1. For that the order of the Joint Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) is contrary to law, facts and circumstances of the case and at any rate against the principles of equity, natural justice and fair play 2. For that the Joint Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) erred in disposing off the appeal ex-parte. 3. For that the Joint Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) failed to appreciate that the appellant had duly applied for an adjournment in response to the notices issued u/s.250. 4. For that the Joint Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) erred in concluding that the appellant was not prevented by sufficient cause from filing appeal within the statutory time. 5. For that the Joint Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) erred in dismissing the appeal. 6. For that the Joint Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) failed to appreciate that filing of Audit Report in Form 10B is directory and not mandatory 7. For that the Joint Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) failed to appreciate that delay in filing audit report in Form 108 couldn't be a bar to claim lawful exemption u/s 11 8. For that without prejudice to the above, the Joint Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) failed to appreciate that the tax liability has been incorrectly computed on the appellant's gross receipts.” 3. Briefly the facts of the case are that appellant is a Trust duly registered under Indian Trust Act. The appellant was also duly registered u/s.12AA of the Income Tax Act. The Return of Income for the Assessment Year 2020- 21 was filed on 31.03.2021 disclosing NIL income after claiming the exemption u/s.11 of the Act. The said Return of Income was processed by the CPC u/s.143(1) of the Act vide intimation dated 30.11.2021 denying exemption u/s.11 of the Act and brought to tax entire gross receipts of Rs.39,31,377/-. On receipt of intimation, the appellant had filed a petition u/s.154 of the Income Tax Act seeking rectification of the intimation which is pending for disposal. In the meantime, the appellant had filed appeal before ld.CIT(A) with a delay of 1301 days. The appellant also filed a condonation petition seeking condonation of delay on the ground that the delay had occurred on account of the fact that the Chairman of the appellant Trust Mr.N.Swmay Das was severely afflicted by Covid-19 and he also filed Medical Certificate from Doctor. It is further contended that the appellant also filed petition u/s.154 seeking rectification of intimation u/s.143(1), subsequently, it is advised by the ld.Counsel that appeal against intimation u/s.143(1) was necessary and immediately thereafter, the appeal was filed on 22.07.2025 with a delay of 1301 days. However, ld.CIT(A) refused to condone the delay by holding that the appellant had not shown sufficient cause despite several opportunities granted to him, he also proceeded to decided the appeal on merits confirmed the disallowance of exemption u/s.11 of the Act by holding that Form 10 was not filed within the due date prescribed and the ld.CIT(Exemption) had refused to condone the delay.

Being aggrieved by the order of ld.CIT(A), appellant filed an appeal before us in the present appeal. The ld.Counsel submits that the ld.CIT(A) ought not to have dismissed the appeal ex-parte despite the assessee seeking adjournment. He further submits that filing of Audit Report in Form 10B is merely a directory and further submits that delayed submission of Audit Report in Form 10B will not act as a bar for claiming exemption u/s.11 of the Act.

On the other hand, ld.CIT-DR opposed the above submissions and submits that the appellant had failed to show the sufficient cause for delay in filing of appeal before the ld.CIT(A). The ld.CIT(A) had rightly refused to condone the delay by passing a reasoned order. Therefore, no interference is called for.

We heard rival submissions and perused the material available on record. The issue that arises for our consideration is that the ld.CIT(A) justified in refusing to condone the delay of 1301 days. Admittedly, the appellant has filed a petition explaining the reasons for delay in filing before him. The explanation filed by the appellant was extracted by the ld.CIT(A)

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed. Order pronounced in the open Court on 27th April, 2026.