SRI KUMAWAT SAMAJ TRUST,CHENNAI vs. CIT, EXEMPTIONS,, CHENNAI

This appeal filed by the assessee is directed against the order dated 29.12.2024 passed by the ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemption), Chennai for the assessment year 2020-21 under section 119(2)(b) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 [“Act” in short].

At the outset, we note that the assessee filed delay condonation petition before the ld. CIT(E) in belatedly filing Form No. 10B. The said petition filed under section 119(2)(b) of the Act was dismissed by the ld. CIT(E). The assessee filed present appeal challenging the action of the ld. CIT(E) is contrary to the law in the facts and circumstances of the case.

The ld. AR Shri Naresh Singh Rathore, C.A. placed on record paper book containing 8 pages and drew our attention to page 1 to 5 and argued that no opportunity was given by the ld. CIT(E) and in the absence of assessee, the ld. CIT(E) rejected the delay condonation petition. The ld. AR argued that the matter may be remanded to the file of the ld. CIT(E) for fresh consideration. He drew our attention to the order dated 05.02.2025 in for AY 2021-22 and argued that on similar circumstances, the Tribunal remanded the matter to the file of the ld. CIT(E) for fresh consideration. He placed reliance on the findings of the Tribunal in para 5 of the order.

The ld. DR Shri AR.V. Sreenivasan, CIT submits that the order passed by the ld. CIT(E) under section 119(2)(b) of the Act is an administrative order and therefore, the same is not appealable before the Tribunal. Thus, the appeal filed by the assessee is liable to be dismissed as not maintainable.

Heard both the parties and perused the material available on record. We note that the assessee filed a petition for condonation of delay in filing Form No. 10B on 21.11.2023. The audit reports are to be filed one month before the due date for filing return of income. For AY 2020-21, the extended due date for filing audit report in Form 10B was 15.01.2021 and extended due date for filing return of income under section 139(4A) of the Act was 15.02.2021. The assessee filed the return of income on 31.03.2021 and Form 10B on 31.03.2021. After considering the reasons stated by the assessee for the delay in the condonation petition, the ld. CIT(E) rejected the petition seeking condonation of delay under section 1119(2)(b) of the Act.

We note that the appeal filed by the assessee is not maintainable before the Tribunal for the reason that an assessee is not vested with any right to assail an order passed under section 119(2)(b) of the Act by preferring an appeal before the Appellate Tribunal. For the sake of clarity, Section 253(1) of the Act that specifically lists out the orders that are appealable before the Appellate Tribunal is reproduced herein below: “253. (1) Any assessee aggrieved by any of the following orders may appeal to the Appellate Tribunal against such order— (a) an order passed by a Deputy Commissioner (Appeals) before the 1st day of October, 1998 or, as the case may be, a Commissioner (Appeals) under section 154, section 250, section 270A, section 271, section 271A 90[, section 271AAB, section 271AAC, section 271AAD], section 271J or section 272A; or 90[(aa) an order passed by a Joint Commissioner (Appeals) under section 154, section 250, section 270A, section 271, section 271A, section 271AAC, section 271AAD or section 271J; or] (b) an order passed by an Assessing Officer under clause (c) of section 158BC, in respect of search initiated under section 132 or books of account, other documents or any assets requisitioned under section 132A, after the 30th day of June, 1995, but before the 1st day of January, 1997; or (ba) an order passed by an Assessing Officer under sub-section (1) of section 115VZC; or (c) an order passed by, (i) a Principal Commissioner or Commissioner under section 12AA or section 12AB or under clause (vi) of sub-section (5) of section 80G or under section 263 or under section 270A or under section 271 or under section 272A or an order passed by him under section 154 amending any such order; or (ii) a Principal Chief Commissioner or Chief Commissioner or a Principal Director General or Director General or a Principal Director or Director under section 263 or under section 272A or an order passed by him under section 154 amending any such order; or (d) an order passed by an Assessing Officer under sub-section (3), of section 143 or section 147 or section 153A or section 153C in pursuance of the directions of the Dispute Resolution Panel or an order passed under section 154 in respect of such order; †or (e) an order passed by an Assessing Officer under sub-section (3) of section 143 or section 147 or section 153A or section 153C with the approval of the Principal Commissioner or Commissioner as referred to in sub-section (12) of section 144BA or an order passed under section 154 or section 155 in respect of such order; or (f) an order passed by the prescribed authority under sub-clause (iv) or sub- clause (v) or sub-clause (vi) or sub-clause (via) of clause (23C) of section 10.”

On plain reading of the order dated 05.02.2025 in as relied on by the ld. AR with that of the provisions under section 253 of the Act, along with order dated 26.03.2025 for AY 2019-20, we note that an order passed by the ld. CIT(E) under section 119(2)(b) of the Act does not find any mention in the list of orders that are appealable before the Appellate Tribunal. Thus, we are constrained to observe that the present appeal filed by the assessee is not maintainable before us. The Hon’ble High Court of Gujarat in the case of CIT Vs. Rasida Ibrahimbhai Vohra (2014) 42 taxmann.com 85(Gujarat) observed that an order passed by the Commissioner under section 119(2)(b) of the Act is an administrative order; therefore, the same is not appealable before the Tribunal. Apart from that, it was observed that as an order passed under section 119(2)(b) of the Act does not find any mention in the orders that are appealable before the Tribunal under section 253 of the Act; therefore, no such appeal was maintainable before the Tribunal. Accordingly, the Hon’ble High Court, based on its aforesaid observations, set-aside the order of the Tribunal, observing that the latter had erroneously entertained the appeal against the order passed by the Commissioner u/s 119(2)(b) of the Act and had restored the matter to his file to re-adjudicate the matter afresh. In view of the above facts and circumstances of the case, we hold that the present appeal filed by the assessee is not maintainable and dismissed accordingly.

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed. Order pronounced on 14th May, 2025 at Chennai.