ADARSH VIDHYA MANDIR SAMITI NAGAR,BHARATPUR vs. ITO, WARD-(1), BHARATPUR, BHARATPUR

ITA 1377/JPR/2026Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur23 October 2026AY 2015-166 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal held that sufficient cause had been shown for the delay of 15 days in filing the appeal before the Tribunal. The affidavit explained that the appellate order was received by the authorized representative, who communicated it to a former cashier. The Secretary only became aware of the order later and then sought professional advice. The Tribunal condoned this delay and admitted the appeal. Regarding the delay of 250 days before the CIT(A), the Tribunal found the explanation in the affidavit satisfactory. The Tribunal reasoned that the assessee's participation in assessment proceedings does not automatically mean it was aware of the orders passed, nor does it imply the delay was deliberate. Therefore, the Tribunal was satisfied that sufficient cause was shown for the delay before the CIT(A). Consequently, the Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s order and restored the matter to the CIT(A)'s file for fresh adjudication on merits, after affording the assessee a reasonable opportunity of being heard. The issue of penalty under Section 271(1)(b) was not decided on merits by the Tribunal, as the CIT(A) had dismissed the appeal on delay.

What were the facts?

The assessee, Adarsh Vidhya Mandir Samiti Nagar, is an educational institution claiming exemption under Section 10(23C)(iiiad) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The Assessing Officer (AO) reopened the case under Section 148 for Assessment Year 2015-16 due to cash deposits of Rs. 52,36,771/-. The AO framed an assessment order under Section 147 read with Section 144, treating the cash deposit as unexplained and making an addition under Section 69A. Penalties were also levied under Section 271(1)(b) (Rs. 20,000/-) and Section 271(1)(c) (Rs. 16,25,136/-). The assessee's authorized representative (CA Sunil Mittal) received notices for AY 2018-19, which brought the orders for AY 2015-16 to his notice. Appeals were filed before the CIT(A) with condonation applications for delays of 390 days (quantum) and 390 days (penalty u/s 271(1)(b)) and 390 days (penalty u/s 271(1)(c)). The CIT(A) dismissed these appeals for not condoning the delay. The assessee then filed an appeal before the ITAT, which was filed with a delay of 15 days.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the Tribunal has the power to condone the delay of 15 days in filing the appeal before it, and if so, whether sufficient cause has been shown for the delay. (Question of law and fact, relying on general principles of procedural law and the Income Tax Act). 2. Whether the CIT(A) erred in not condoning the delay of 250 days in filing the appeal before him, and consequently, erred in not deciding the appeal on merits concerning the penalty levied under Section 271(1)(b) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. (Question of mixed law and fact, concerning the interpretation of 'sufficient cause' under the Act). Assessee's Contentions: - The delay of 15 days before the Tribunal was due to the time taken to obtain professional advice after the CIT(A)'s order was received. - The delay of 250 days before the CIT(A) occurred because the assessment and penalty orders were not brought to the assessee's notice in a timely manner by its authorized representative, and the assessee only became aware of them upon receiving a show-cause notice for AY 2018-19. - The assessee's participation in assessment proceedings does not imply knowledge of the final orders. Revenue's Contentions: - The revenue did not explicitly record any contentions in the judgment regarding the delay or the merits of the case before the Tribunal. The CIT(A)'s order, which is under challenge, focused solely on the delay.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 148,Section 147,Section 144,Section 69A,Section 271(1)(b),Section 271(1)(c)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, JAIPUR BENCHES, “SMC” BENCH, JAIPUR

For Appellant: Shri P.C. Parwal,C.A
Hearing: 21.10.2026Pronounced: 23.10.2026

Per Shri Om Prakash Kant, AM :- This appeal by the assessee is directed against order dated 04.02.2026 passed by the National Faceless Appeal Centre [hereinafter referred to as the ld ‘CIT(A)’] for the assessment year 2015-16 raising following grounds:-

2 Asst. Year: 2015-16

1.

The Ld. CIT(A), NFAC has erred on facts and in law in 1 dismissing the appeal filed by the assessee by not condoning the delay of 250 days in filing the appeal.

2.

The Ld. CIT(A), NFAC has erred on facts and in law in not 2 deciding on merit the action of AO in levying penalty of Rs.20,000/- u/s 271(1)(b) of IT Act, 1961. 3. The appellant craves to alte

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 148

All 35,022 judgments and leading authorities on Section 148 →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →