SWAMINI SEWA SANSTHA,JAIPUR vs. EXEMPTION WARD 1, JAIPUR

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, JAIPUR BENCHES, “SMC” BENCH, JAIPUR BEFORE SMT. ANNAPURNA GUPTA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA Nos. 1582 & 1606/JPR/2025 (Assessment Year:2022-23) Swamini Sewa Sanstha Vs. Exemption Plot No.31, Kumawat Ward 1 Colony, Sodala Jaipur Jaipur �थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./PAN/GIR No:ABCAS 7498 G Appellant .. Respondent Appellant by : Sh. Sailesh Mantri, CA Respondent by : Mrs. Aarti Rawat, Addl. CIT Date of Hearing 22.06.2026 Date of Pronouncement 25.06.2026 O R D E R Both the appeals relate to the same assessee and are filed against separate orders passed by the National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi (hereinafter referred to as “Ld. CIT(A)”) both dated 11.09.2025 under Section 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act”). While the appeal in ITA No.1582/JPR/2025 is filed against order passed in first appeal in quantum proceedings, the appeal in ITA No.1606/JPR/2025 is against order passed by Ld.CIT(A) confirming levy of penalty under Section 271(1)(c) of the Act.

P a g e | 2 ITA Nos. 1582 and 1606/JPR/2025 Swamini Sewa Sanstha Since the issues involved in these appeals are related, the same are being heard together for the sake of convenience and common disposal. 2. I shall first take up the assessee’s appeal in quantum proceedings in ITA No.1582/JPR/2025. 3. The grounds of appeal raised by the assessee are as under:- 1. That the Ld. CIT(A)- NFAC, has erred in facts and in law by confirming penalty u/s 270A amounting to Rs.2,68,494/- without giving proper opportunity of hearing. 2. That the appellant craves to add, amend, and alter the grounds before OR at the time of appellate hearing 4. At the outset, it was pointed out that in the quantum proceedings, the assessment order was passed ex parte u/s 144 of the Act, and the Ld. CIT(A) had dismissed assessee’s appeal as not maintainable by not condoning the delay of 340 days in the filing of the appeal before him. The plea of the ld. Counsel for the assessee before me, was that the Ld. CIT(A) be directed to condone the delay and the matter be restored back to the file of AO for consideration afresh, since the assessee has not been adequately represented before, either of the Authorities, and addition has been made to its income without being heard at all. 5. Ld. Counsel for the assessee contended that, the assessee was a small society doing charitable activities. He contended that the assessee had not been granted registration u/s 12A of the Act, and accordingly filed return of income as AOP disclosing loss of Rs.20,500/-. He contended that, in the assessment framed the social expenses claimed by the assessee amounting to Rs.4,30,280/-, had been disallowed by the AO, and the income of the assessee assessed at

P a g e | 3 ITA Nos. 1582 and 1606/JPR/2025 Swamini Sewa Sanstha Rs.4,09,780/-. He contended that, the social expenses pertained to the charitable activities carried out by it and which had been disallowed on account of the lack of representation on behalf of the assessee before the AO. He pleaded that the assessee being a small entity not assisted by any Professional was unable to comply with the various notices issued to it, more particularly in the e-proceedings with the technicalities of which the assessee was unaware. That even before the Ld. CIT(A), the assessee was delayed in filing appeal being unaware of the income tax laws and rules and not being properly guided by Professionals. He pointed out from para 4 of the Ld. CIT(A)s order that, the assessee had explained the delay in filing of the appeal before the Ld. CIT(A) to have occurred on account of the fact that it was unaware of the laws and procedures and it was only when notices for assessment of subsequent years were also received by it, that the assessee consulted Professionals and came to know about the appeal filing procedures and accordingly, filed appeal before the Ld. CIT(A). 6. I have considered the plea of the assessee, and I find sufficient cause for the delay in filing of appeal before Ld. CIT(A). The assessee surely, is a small AOP operating on a small scale, and therefore, may not have been assisted by any Professionals, so as to guide it in matters of law relating to taxation and the complex procedures involved in it. Since the ex parte assessment and the rejection of assessee’s appeal by the Ld. CIT(A), by not condoning the delay has resulted in, addition being made to its income multiple times to that return, I am of the view that the interest of justice should prevail over the technicalities of

P a g e | 4 ITA Nos. 1582 and 1606/JPR/2025 Swamini Sewa Sanstha condonation of delay. I accordingly, condone the delay in filing of the appeal before Ld. CIT(A), and further, restore the issue back to the file of the AO to frame assessment afresh after giving due opportunity of hearing to the assessee. 7. In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA No.1582/JPR/2025 is accordingly allowed for statistical purposes. 8. Since the quantum appeal has been restored back to the file of AO, the issue of levy of penalty is also restored to the file of AO for afresh hearing along with the assessment in the present case. In the combined result, both the appeals of the assessee are 9. allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced in the open court on 25.06.2026

Sd/- (Annapurna Gupta) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Dated 25.06.2026 Mittali, Sr. PS Copy forwarded to: 1. Appellant 2. Respondent 3. CIT 4. CIT(Appeals) 5. DR: ITAT By Order, Asst. Registrar ITAT, Jaipur