COUNCIL OF SCIENCE & TECHNOLOGY U.P. LUCKNOW SOCIETY,LUCKNOW vs. ITO-4(1), LUCKNOW, LUCKNOW

ITA 797/LKW/2026Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow24 September 2026AY 2018-1911 pages
AI SummaryPartly Allowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) erred in dismissing the appeals in limine. The Tribunal noted that all communications were made electronically, and there was no evidence of physical service of notices. The email IDs and mobile numbers on the income tax portal belonged to an employee and a counsel, which could reasonably explain the assessee's lack of response and the delay in filing appeals. Considering the assessee's claim of exemption under section 10(23C)(iiiab), the explanation for cash deposits from planetarium ticket sales, and fixed deposits from employee provident fund contributions, and the audit by the State Auditor General, the Tribunal restored the matter to the AO for re-examination. Consequently, ITA No. 799/LKW/2026 (related to assessment) was allowed for statistical purposes. Regarding the penalty under section 271AAC(1), the Tribunal held it was premature as the nature of deposits was yet to be enquired into. The penalty was deleted with liberty to the AO to re-initiate proceedings if warranted. ITA No. 798/LKW/2026 was allowed. Similarly, the penalty under section 272A(1)(d) was deleted as there were adequate reasons for the assessee's non-compliance and delay in filing appeals. ITA No. 797/LKW/2026 was allowed.

What were the facts?

The assessee, Council of Science & Technology U.P. Lucknow Society, an Artificial Juridical Person running a planetarium, failed to file a return of income for Assessment Year 2018-19. The Assessing Officer (AO) issued various notices under sections 148, 143(2), 142(1), and 144, but received no compliance. The AO completed the assessment under section 144, making additions of Rs. 37,06,691/- (cash deposits), Rs. 1,10,40,247/- (time deposits), and Rs. 7,19,667/- (interest income), totaling Rs. 1,54,66,605/-. Penalty proceedings were initiated under section 271AAC(1) for Rs. 11,39,200/- and under section 272A(1)(d) for Rs. 10,000/-. The assessee appealed these orders to the CIT(A), NFAC, but the appeals were dismissed in limine due to delay. The assessee then filed appeals before the ITAT against the CIT(A)'s orders dated 08.07.2026.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the CIT(A) erred in dismissing the assessee's appeals in limine as barred by limitation, by refusing to condone the delay in filing the appeals, without properly appreciating the bona fide and sufficient cause explained by the appellant (turning on the principles of condonation of delay). 2. Whether the CIT(A) erred in sustaining the penalty imposed under section 271AAC(1) of Rs. 11,39,200/-, which is contrary to facts, law, and circumstances, and without considering the actual income of the appellant (turning on Section 271AAC(1)). 3. Whether the CIT(A) erred in sustaining the penalty imposed under section 272A(1)(d) of Rs. 10,000/-, which is contrary to facts, law, and circumstances, and without considering the bonafide reasons for non-participation in assessment proceedings (turning on Section 272A(1)(d)). Assessee's Contentions: The assessee argued that all notices were sent to email IDs and mobile numbers belonging to an employee and an Authorized Representative, not directly to the society. The employee was not handling accounts during the period, and the AR did not inform the society of the developments. The society claimed exemption under section 10(23C)(iiiab) and stated that cash deposits were from planetarium ticket sales and fixed deposits were from employee provident fund contributions. They relied on the fact that their accounts were audited by the Auditor General of Uttar Pradesh. Revenue's Contentions: The revenue argued that the assessee society was responsible for managing its affairs and making legal compliances. They pointed out the assessee's failure to comply with notices during assessment and penalty proceedings, and its negligence in filing appeals on time, only acting when faced with a demand notice. The revenue contended that the CIT(A) was justified in not condoning the delay.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 147,Section 144,Section 271AAC(1),Section 272A(1)(d),Section 69A,Section 148,Section 143(2),Section 142(1)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, LUCKNOW ‘A’ BENCH, LUCKNOW

Before: SH. SUDHANSHU SRIVASTAVA & SH. NIKHIL CHOUDHARY

Hearing: 9.09.2026Pronounced: 24.09.2026

PER BENCH: These three appeals have been filed by the assessee against the separate orders of the ld. CIT(A), NFAC, all dated 08.07.2026, wherein the ld. CIT(A) has dismissed the appeals of the assessee that were delayed and were filed against the orders of the ld. Assessing Officer under section 147 r.w.s. 144 on 20.03.2023, under section 271AAC(1) that was passed on 18.09.2023 and under section 272A(1)(d) that was passed on 5.09.2023, all for the assessment year 2018-19. The grounds of appeal are as under:- “Ground No-1. Because the Appellate Order CIT(A) NFAC, Delhi dated 08.07.2026 sustaining the penalty imposed u/s 272A(1)(d) is contrary to facts, l

The order continues below.

Read the full judgment

A free account opens 10 full judgments a month. Re-reading one you have already opened does not count again.

Create a free accountSign in

See plans and prices

The summary, the parties, the sections and the citations above are open to everyone and always will be. Only the text of the order and the PDF are metered.

More judgments on Section 147

All 49,210 judgments and leading authorities on Section 147 →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →