GITANJALI URBAN AND RURAL INTEGREATED DEVELOPMENT AND EDUCATIONAL SOCIETY,PODILI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER ( EXEMPTIONS), GUNTUR

In the above cited appeal, the Ld.CIT(A) has dismissed the assessee’s appeal by holding that, the appellant has not provided proper explanation for the delay of 1037 days. The Ld.CIT(A) held that in the absence of specific, continuous and substantiated cause for this prolonged delay renders the condonation request untenable. Judicial principles require that condonation of delay be granted only when the appellant demonstrates bonafide and sufficient cause and not on the basis of vague, remote or uncorroborated assertions. After considering the material available on record, the Ld.CIT(A) held that the appellant has failed to discharge the burden of proving sufficient cause as required u/s 249(3) of the Act. Accordingly, the delay in filing the appeal was not condoned and held the appeal before the Ld.CIT(A) as time barred and liable to be dismissed in limine, without adjudicating the grounds raised on merits. The Ld.CIT(A), while dismissing the appeal of the assessee relied on several decisions and finally held that procedural rules are essential in the orderly, efficient and speedy administration of justice and cannot be characterized as mere technicalities that may be ignored at will to suit the convenience of a party. The determination of the timeliness of the petition is important and the same ought to be filed within the period prescribed by law as a jurisdictional requirement. Therefore, the delay in filing of appeal was not condoned and the appeal was dismissed in limine without adjudicating the grounds raised by the appellant.

Aggrieved by the order of the Ld.CIT(A) as above, the assessee has filed an appeal before the ITAT, stating that the Educational Society is not aware of Income Tax proceedings and totally relied on the advice of tax consultants and their secretary, Mr.K.V.Ramesh Babu. The Ld.AR of the appellant has stated that the Secretary, who is Incharge of looking after the accounts passed away in a road accident and subsequently, the Accountant of the Trust, who was responsible for maintaining financial records was diagnosed with paralysis. The second reason attributed for delay in filing the appeal is the tax demand notice sent to the Trust shows “zero”. Since the Income Tax Department has sent the demand notice as “Nil”, the clerical staff also did not pay much attention to the filing of further appeal. The third reason cited by the Ld.AR of the appellant is that accounting staff could not understand the inadvertent reporting entry under Schedule 115TD and the issue could not be resolved through rectification. The appellant came to know about the Income Tax demand only when the Department attached the bank accounts of the assessee and recovered Rs.5.54 lakhs. In view of all these circumstances, there was delay in filing of appeal before the Ld.CIT(A), because, there is no proper advice from the Tax Counsel. After incorporating all these reasons, the appellant has filed an affidavit, mentioning the above reasons and requested the ITAT to condone the delay in filing the appeal before the Ld.CIT(A) and direct him to pass an order on merits.

The Ld.DR opposed the condonation petition filed and the arguments of the Ld.AR of the appellant, stating that these reasons were not mentioned before the Ld.CIT(A) and hence the delay should not be condoned and consequently, the appeal of the assessee is to be dismissed.

After hearing both the sideS, the Bench decides to condone the delay because of the following reasons :

In the result, the appeal filed by the Assessee is allowed for statistical purposes.