SRI CHENNAKESHAVA SWAMY EDUCATION TRUST,NRUPATUNGA EXTENSION, TUMKUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD ONE, TUMKUR

The assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal:- Page 2 of 11 1. That the order of the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) in so far it is prejudicial to the interests of the appellant is bad and erroneous in law and against the facts and circumstances of the case.

That the learned lower authorities ought to have provided reasons and opportunity of being heard before disallowing the revenue expenses of Rs. 57,02,932/- claimed as deduction which is the mandatory requirement of provisions of section 143(1) of the Act.

That the learned lower authorities erred in law and on facts in disallowing the revenue expenses of Rs. 57,02,932/- as deduction even though such disallowance does not fall under the purview of section 143(1) of the Act.

That the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) ought to have allowed the deduction of Rs. 57,02,932/- purely on commercial principles.

At the outset, the ld. A.R. of the assessee vehemently submitted that there was delay of 852 days in filing the appeal before the ld. Addl/JCIT(A). Before us, the assessee filed an application for condonation of delay before the ld. Addl/JCIT(A) which could not be uploaded by the Chartered Accountant inadvertently along with Form No.35. The application stating the reason is reproduced below for ease of reference and convenience:

Before us, the ld. AR of the assessee vehemently submitted that the assessee was completely unaware of the intimation passed by the CPC for the AY 2021-22 as the assessee did not receive any intimation issued by the CPC u/s 143(1) of the Act dated 25.11.2022 for the AY 2021-22 and the same came to the knowledge of the assessee after the local JAO called upon for the outstanding demand. Immediately, thereafter the assessee contacted the Chartered Accountant for advice on further course of action who advised to file the appeal and hence, there is a delay. The ld. A.R. further submitted that the delay is unintentional and no benefit can be attributed to the assessee in filing the appeal Page 7 of 11 belatedly. He thus prayed to condone the delay before the ld. CIT(A)/NFAC and requested to consider the issues raised by the assessee on merits.

On the contrary the ld. D.R. vehemently objected for granting the condonation of such huge delay in the absence of any valid reasons.

We have perused the details filed by the assessee to justify the delay and we are satisfied that there is no malafide intention on the part of the assessee in filing the appeal belatedly before us.It is to be noted that u/s 253(5) of the Act, the Tribunal may admit the appeal filed beyond the period of limitation where it has established that there exists a sufficient cause on the part of the assessee for not presenting the appeals within the prescribed time. The explanation therefore, becomes relevant to determine whether the same reflect sufficient and reasonable cause on the part of the assessee in not filing these appeals within the prescribed time. We have gone through the reasons explained by the assessee supported by an affidavit filed by the Chartered Accountant of the assessee. On going through the above application for condonation as well as affidavit filed by the Chartered Accountant of the assessee, we find that the assessee could not file the appeal within the prescribed period for the reason that the assessee did not receive the intimation issued by the CPC u/s 143(1) of the Act dated 25.11.2022 for the AY 2021-22 and the same came to the knowledge of the assessee after the local JAO called upon for the outstanding demand. Immediately, thereafter the assessee contacted the Chartered Accountant for advice on further course of action who advised to file the appeal and hence, there is a delay. The Chartered Accountant on the other hand by way of an Affidavit Page 8 of 11 submitted that he had given his email id rjsrassociates@hotmail.com in the income tax profile of Sri Chennakeshava Swamy Education Trust and he was under the bonafide belief that a separate assessment proceeding will be initiated for the disallowance made and all the submissions regarding the same should be made during such assessment proceedings. Thereafter, he received a call from the assessee who informed him about a call from the JAO for the recovery of outstanding demand for AY 2021-22. It is then he consulted another Chartered Accountant who advised to file an appeal before the ld. Addl/JCIT(A). Further, the chartered Accountant also admitted the fact that although the statement of facts, grounds of appeal and application seeking condonation of delay was a single pdf file but the same could not be uploaded along with the Form No. 35 due to Oversight/technical error which he was unaware of. We are of the considered opinion that the assessee demonstrates sufficient cause for filing the appeal belatedly by 852 days before the ld. Addl/JCIT(A).

Now having condoned the delay in filing the appeal before the ld. Addl./JCIT(A), we deem it fit and proper to remit the entire issue in dispute to the file of the ld. Addl./JCIT(A) to decide afresh on the merit of the case in accordance with law. Needless to say, a reasonable opportunity of being heard must be granted to the assessee. The assessee is also directed to produce all the relevant Page 11 of 11 documents/information/evidences/accounts in support of its claim or as directed by the ld. Addl./JCIT(A). It is ordered accordingly.

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

The Applicant 2. The Respondent 3. The CIT 4. The DR, ITAT, Bangalore. 5 Guard file By order