SACRED TRUST REGISTERED ,BANGALORE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-5(3)(4), BANGALORE

Present appeal of the assessee is arising from the order of ld. CIT(A) dated 31.5.2024 having DIN & Order No.ITBA/APL/S/250/2024-25/1065317517(1) relates to AY 2016- 17.

The ld. CIT(A) has dismissed the appeal of the assessee on the ground that the appeal filed by the assessee was barred by limitation for 5 years 9 months and 29 days.

Before we proceed, it is worthy to note that there is a delay of 28 days before us in filing the appeal. Ld. Counsel for the assessee Sacred Trust Registered, Bangalore Page 2 of 4 appearing on behalf of the assessee contended that the concerned person Mr. G.B. Raju was suffering from dengue. Ld. Counsel also drawn the attention of the bench towards the medical certificate issued by PYNAR Hospital, Hubli, Bangalore.

Ld. D.R. appearing on behalf of the revenue Mr. Gale strongly opposed the application for condonation of delay.

We have heard the rival submissions and perused the materials available on record. For the reasons mentioned in the delay application, we are of the view that there was a reasonable cause for not filing the appeal before us in time. Therefore, we hereby condone the delay of 28 days happened before us in filing the appeal. Now we proceed to decide the matter on merits.

The assessee is a Charitable Trust and owns 6 institutions. It has claimed deduction u/s 10(23C)(iiiad) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short “The Act”). The CPC Bangalore denied the claim of the assessee on the ground that the assessee’s income is above Rs.1 Crore. Hence, the assessee could have obtained the certificate u/s 10(23C) of the Act from the competent authority.

Aggrieved with the order of CPC, the assessee filed appeal before the ld. CIT(A) after a lapse of around 5 years 9 months and 28 days. Ld. Counsel for the assessee appearing on behalf of the assessee has contended that the assessee has received the order of

Ld. D.R. Mr. Gale pointed out that in form 35, the assessee himself has mentioned that it has received the order on 30.4.2018. Therefore, the delay is of 5 years 9 months 29 days.

We have heard the rival submissions and perused the materials available on record. Without commenting upon the merits of the application in respect of condonation of delay happened before ld. CIT(A), we are of the view that it is a case of inordinate delay and hence, the burden is on the assessee to prove the delay happened before the ld. CIT(A) with cogent material. The ld. CIT(A) has also not dealt with the application of the assessee in a judicious manner. Therefore, in the interest of justice, we remit this matter to the file of ld. CIT(A) once again. The ld. CIT(A) will consider the application for condonation of delay of the assessee in accordance with law and will decide whether the appeal of the assessee is liable to be admitted or not? The assessee is given a liberty to prove his case vis-à-vis delay happened before the ld. CIT(A). We are not dealing with the merits of the case right now.

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