SAARC ASSOCIATION OF AESTHETIC DERMATOLOGY,LUCKNOW vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, EXEMPTION WARD, LUCKNOW

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL LUCKNOW BENCH “A”, LUCKNOW BEFORE SHRI. SUDHANSHU SRIVASTAVA, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI NIKHIL CHOUDHARY, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA No.706/LKW/2025 Assessment Year: 2023-24 Saarc Association of Aesthetic v. The Income Tax Officer Dermatology Exemption Ward 4/276, Vineet Khand Lucknow Gomti Nagar, Lucknow (U.P) TAN/PAN:AAQTS8179Q (Applicant) (Respondent) Applicant by: None Respondent by: Shri Amit Kumar, D.R. O R D E R This appeal has been preferred by the Assessee against the order dated 25.08.2025, passed by the Addl/JCIT(A)-13, Mumbai for Assessment Year 2023-24.

2.0 The brief facts of the case are that the assessee was a Private Discretionary Trust engaged in the activity of organizing events, seminars, etc. in the field of Aesthetic Dermatology. The assessee filed its return of income for the year under consideration on 28.07.2023 declaring an income of Rs.38,91,651/-. The return of the assessee was processed by the CPC and vide intimation under section 143(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter called 'the Act’) dated 18.12.2023, it imposed a Surcharge @ 37% amounting to Rs.4,31,973/-.

ITA No.706/LKW/2025 Page 2 of 5

Against this order of the CPC, the assessee preferred three rectification applications in a row under section 154 of the Act before the CPC, all of which were rejected by the CPC.

2.1 Aggrieved, the Assessee preferred an appeal before the Ld. First Appellate Authority. Subsequently, the appeal was migrated to the NFAC, which dismissed the appeal of the assessee in limine for the reason of delay in filing the appeal before the Ld. First Appellate Authority.

2.2 Now the assessee has approached this Tribunal challenging the order of the NFAC, by raising the following grounds of appeal:

1) That the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) NFAC has erred in law and on facts and circumstances of the case is disposing the appeal ex-parte, rejecting the application for condonation of delay without appreciating the facts of the case.

2) That the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) NFAC has erred in law and on facts and circumstances of the case is disposing the appeal ex-parte, without adjudicating the grounds of appeal raised.

3) That the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) NFAC has erred in law and on facts and circumstances of the case in confirming the imposition of Surcharge of 37% levied by CPC while processing the Income Tax Return even when the

ITA No.706/LKW/2025 Page 3 of 5

Returned and Assessed Income is below the statutory limit of Rs.50 Lakhs as stipulated by Section 2(29C) and the Finance Act 2023.

4) That the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) NFAC has failed to appreciate the fact that the CPC has erred in levying a Surcharge of 37% on the Maximum Marginal Rate (MMR) of Tax i.e 30%, which already includes any/all types of Surcharges. The CPC ought to have applied a blanket/flat rate of MMR being 30% on the taxable income of the appellant irrespective of the income of the appellant.

5) That the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) NFAC has failed to appreciate that the order passed under section 143(1) is without giving proper opportunity to the appellant which is bad in law.

6) That the order passed by Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) NFAC is against the merits circumstances and legal aspects of the case.

7) That the appellant craves leave to add, alter, amend or withdraw any or all the grounds of appeal on or before the date of hearing.

3.0 None was present when the appeal was called out for hearing. However, an application dated 09.02.2026, seeking adjournment, on behalf of Shri Sourabh Gupta, Advocate, was placed before us citing the reason that he would be out of station due a family exigency and, therefore, the appeal may be

ITA No.706/LKW/2025 Page 4 of 5

adjourned. However, looking into facts of the case, we reject the adjournment application and proceed to adjudicate the appeal.

4.0 The Ld. Sr. D.R. placed reliance on the orders of the authorities below and submitted that the appeal of the assessee may be dismissed.

5.0 We have heard the Ld. Sr. D.R. and have also perused the material on record. Looking into the facts of this case, we are of the considered view that the assessee deserves one more opportunity to present its case and, therefore, in the interest of substantial justice, we restore this file to the Office of the Ld. Addl/JCIT(A)-3, Mumbai with the direction to give an opportunity to the assessee to explain the delay in filing the appeal and thereafter, if deemed appropriate, condone the delay and admit the appeal to be heard on merits after providing an opportunity of hearing to the assessee to present its case. We also caution the assessee to fully comply with the directions of the Ld. Addl/JCIT(A)-3, Mumbai in the set-aside proceedings when called upon to do so, failing which, the Ld. Addl/JCIT(A)-3, Mumbai would be at complete liberty to pass the order in accordance with law, based on material available on record even if it is ex-parte qua the assessee.

ITA No.706/LKW/2025 Page 5 of 5

6.0 In the result, the appeal of the assessee stands allowed for statistical purposes.

Order pronounced in the open Court on 06/05/2026.

Sd/- Sd/- [NIKHIL CHOUDHARY] [SUDHANSHU SRIVASTAVA] ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER

DATED:06/05/2026 JJ: Copy forwarded to: 1. Appellant 2. Respondent 3. CIT(A) 4. CIT 5. DR By order

Assistant Registrar/DDO