M/S. ALTERNATIVE FOR INDIA DEVELOPMENT,CHENNAI vs. ITO, EXEMPTION WARD-4, CHENNAI

Aggrieved by the order of the Assessing Officer, the assessee filed an appeal before the ld.CIT (A), NFAC, Delhi.

At the outset, the ld.CIT(A) found that there is a delay of 874 days in appeal filed by the assessee on 20.02.2024 against the order u/s.143(3) of the Act dated 30.08.2021. Before the ld.CIT(A), the assessee filed the condonation of delay petition stating that the statutory notices issued by the AO had not been received by the assessee and also the order passed u/s.143(3) of the Act dated 30.08.2021. The assessee became aware of the order passed only after attachment of the bank account of the trust on 13.02.2024. The assessee immediately took steps to file an appeal against the order of the AO and filed the same on 20.02.2024 and prayed for condonation of delay. The ld.CIT(A) after considering the exclusion of COVID-19 as directed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court found that still there is a delay of 632 days beyond the extended limitation period of 30.05.2022. Therefore, the ld.CIT(A) dismissed appeal of the assessee by rejecting the condonation petition for delay in filing of the assessee without adjudicating the case on merits.

Aggrieved by the order of ld.CIT(A), the assessee has filed an appeal before us.

The ld.AR submitted that the assessee is a registered public charitable trust in carrying out bonafide charitable activities for the benefit of general public and the denial of exemption solely on procedural grounds defeats the purpose of the beneficial provisions u/s.11 & 12 of the Act. Further, the ld.AR stated that the appeal was not prosecuted before the ld.CIT(A) as the same has been dismissed without condoning the delay in filing the appeal and also the assessment order was passed u/s.143(3) of the Act by the AO without the complete participation of the assessee while making an addition of Rs.1.28 Crores. Therefore, ld.AR prayed for one more opportunity may be provided to the assessee to represent his case before the AO in the interest of natural justice. Further, the ld.AR assured the bench that he will undertake to represent on behalf of the assessee before the AO, in case one more opportunity is provided.

Per contra, the ld.DR submitted that the assessee is negligent in responding to the notices of the department and filed the appeal before the ld.CIT(A) with a delay of 874 days and hence prayed for confirming the order of the ld.CIT(A).

We have heard rival contentions and noticed that the ld.CIT(A) has passed an order by not condoning the delay in filing the appeal by 874 days before the first appellate proceedings. We note that the assessee had filed the appeal before the ld.CIT(A) belatedly due to non receipt of notices and order of the AO and became aware of the order only after attachment of the bank account of the trust. Hence, in the interest of justice, we are of the considered view that the assessee needs to be given one more opportunity before the AO

In the present facts and circumstances of the case and to meet the ends of justice, we are deeming it fit to provide one more opportunity to the assessee and hence we set aside the order of the ld.CIT(A) by condoning the delay in filing the appeal before the first appellate authority and remit the matter back to the file to AO to frame the assessment denovo in accordance to law, after providing reasonable opportunity to the assessee. Needless to say, assessee to be diligent and file written submissions and relevant documents if advised so.

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

अपीलाथी/Appellant 2. प्रत्यथी/Respondent 3.आयकर आयुक्त/CIT– Chennai/Coimbatore/Madurai/Salem 4. धवभागीय प्रधतधनधि/DR 5. गार्ज फाईल/GF