HAJI ISMAIL HABIB MOSQUE ,MUMBAI vs. ITO EXEM WARD 1(3), MUMBAI

स िवाई की िारीख / Date of Hearing 17.06.2025 घोर्णा की िारीख/Date of Pronouncement 24.06.2025 आदेश / O R D E R PER SANDEEP GOSAIN [J.M.]:- This appeal is filed by the assessee against the order of the Learned Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals), Mumbai/National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi [hereinafter referred to as “CIT(A)”] dated 09.06.2025 passed u/s. 250 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 [hereinafter referred to as “Act”] for Assessment Year [A.Y.] 2014-15.

A.Y. 2014-15 Haji Ismail Haji Habib Mosque 2. The assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal:

1. On the facts and in law, the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) [in short Ld. CIT(A)] erred in rejecting the Appeal filed by the Appellant for non- prosecution.

2. On the facts and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) erred in confirming the addition made by the Ld. Assessing Officer (in short Ld. AO) of Rs. 12,60,000/- under Section 115BBC without appreciating the fact that Section 115BBC is not applicable to religious trust and therefore, the impugned addition is bad in law.

3. On the facts and in law, order passed by the Ld. CIT(A) is in violation of the principle of natural justice and therefore, the order is bad in law.

4. On the facts and in law, Ld. AO erred in disallowing expenditure on object of the Trust on Ad hoc basis of Rs. 3,85,450/-without any basis is bad in law and is liable to be deleted.

5. On the facts and in law, the impugned addition of Rs. 30,799/- as per Para 3, Rs. 12,60,000/- (Sec. 115BBC) Para 4 and Rs. 3,85,450 (Ad hoc basis) is bad in law and it is liable to be quashed and set aside.”

3. At the outset, I notice that there is a delay in filing the present appeal from which an affidavit has been filed. On the contrary, Ld. DR has contested the said application and requested to reject the application for seeking condonation of delay.

4. After having heard the counsels for both the parties and considering the entire factual position as explained before us, and also keeping in view the principles laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Land Acquisition Collector v/s MSD Katiji & others 1987 Air 1353 (SC), wherein it has been held that where substantial justice is pitted against technicalities of the non-deliberate delay, then in that eventuality substantial A.Y. 2014-15 Haji Ismail Haji Habib Mosque justice is to be preferred. In my view, the principle of advancing substantial justice is of prime importance, hence considering the explanation put forth by the assessee by justifiably and properly explaining the delay, which occurred in filing the appeal and construing the expression ‘sufficient cause’ Liberally, we are inclined to condone the delay in filing the appeal. Consequently, the appeal is admitted to be heard on the merits.

5. I notice that no proper representation was put forth by the assessee before the Ld. CIT(A) as the assessee was exparte before the Ld. CIT(A).

6. Considering the interest of justice and the facts of the present case, I feel that the issues between the parties are to be decided on merits. Therefore, keeping in view the said principles, the present appeal of the assessee is restored to the file of the Ld. CIT(A) for deciding it afresh after providing an opportunity of hearing to both parties. The assessee shall not seek any adjournment on frivolous grounds and shall remain cooperative during the course of the proceedings. A cost of Rs. 5,000/- is imposed upon the assessee for condoning the delay and for a non-cooperative attitude before the Ld. CIT(A). Therefore, the said amount is to be deposited in the Prime Minister's National Relief Fund, and the receipt thereof shall be placed in the file of the Ld. CIT(A) within 30 days from the date of receipt of this order.

A.Y. 2014-15 Haji Ismail Haji Habib Mosque 7. Before parting, I make it clear that the decision to restore the matter back to file Ld. CIT(A) shall in no way be construed as having any reflection or expression on the merits of the dispute, which shall be adjudicated by Ld. CIT(A) independently in accordance with law. 8. In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced in the open court on 24.06.2025.