ILM EDUCATION AND CHARITABLE TRUST,TIRUCHIRAPALLI vs. ITO, EXEMPTIONS WARD,, TRICHY

ITA 122/CHNY/2025Status: DisposedITAT Chennai20 March 2025AY 2019-204 pages

In favour of the assessee: the assessee's appeal was allowed. From the AI summary of this appeal.

AI SummaryAllowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal held that there was sufficient cause for the delay in filing the appeal before the Addl. CIT(A). The Tribunal noted that the assessee had provided the COVID-19 pandemic as the reason for the delay, and while the Addl. CIT(A) did not accept this explanation, the Tribunal was of the opinion that it constituted a sufficient cause. Therefore, the Tribunal directed the Addl. CIT(A) to condone the delay and adjudicate the appeal on merits. The assessee was also directed to appear before the Addl. CIT(A) on the date of hearing without fail and furnish complete details. The appeals were allowed for statistical purposes only.

What were the facts?

The assessee, ILM Educational and Charitable Trust, filed two appeals before the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) challenging orders for Assessment Years (AYs) 2018-19 and 2019-20. The appeals arose from intimations issued by CPC, Bengaluru under Section 143(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961. The assessee had filed appeals before the Addl. CIT(A) with a significant delay of 1352 days. The Addl. CIT(A) dismissed these appeals in limine without condoning the delay. The assessee contended that the delay was due to the COVID-19 pandemic, which prevented their accounts personnel from attending the office. The revenue relied on the orders of the lower authorities.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the delay of 1352 days in filing the appeal before the Addl. CIT(A) should be condoned, considering the reasons provided by the assessee. Assessee's Contention: The assessee argued that the delay was caused by the COVID-19 pandemic, which made it impossible for their accounts staff to attend the office and file the appeal on time. They contended that dismissing the appeal in limine without condoning the delay would cause great injustice, as the income was computed at gross total receipts, and the merits of the case would not be considered. They prayed for the appeal to be admitted and decided on merits. Revenue's Contention: The Revenue's representative relied on the orders of the lower authorities.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 143(1)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, ‘B’ BENCH: CHENNAI

Before: SHRI MANU KUMAR GIRI & SHRI JAGADISH

Hearing: 20.03.2025Pronounced: 26.03.2025

आदेश / O R D E R

PER JAGADISH, A.M : Aforesaid two appeals filed by the assessee for Assessment Years (AYs) 2018-19 & 2019-20 arises out of the orders of Learned Commissioner of Income Tax, Appeal, Addl/JCIT(A)-2, Hyderabad [hereinafter “Addl. CIT(A)”] dated 24.12.2024 in the matter of intimations issued by CPC, Bengaluru [AO] u/s. 143(1) of the Income- tax Act,1961 (hereinafter “the Act”) on 31.01.2020.

& 122/Chny/2025 :- 2 -:

The effective ground of appeal in both the appeals of assessee are against dismissing the appeal in limine without condoning the delay by the Ld. Addl. CIT(A).

The facts in both the appeals of the assessee are identical and issues are common hence, we proceed to pass a common order. For brevity, we shall take up the appeal in for A.Y 2018-19 as lead case.

The assessee has filed appeal before Ld. Addl. CIT(A) against the intimation issued u/s. 143(1) of the Act issued by CPC, Bengaluru, wherein the income was computed at gross total gross receipts.

Aggrieved, the assessee filed an appeal before Ld. Addl. CIT(A) with a delay of 1352 days. However, the Ld. Addl. CIT(A) did not condone the delay and dismissed the appeal in limine.

The Ld. Authorized Representative (A.R.) of the assessee has submitted that intimation order was passed on 0.01.2020 and due to covid-19 pandemic, the accounts people could not attend the office, and appeal could not be filed. The Ld. counsel for the assessee has stated that CPC has assessed the income at gross total receipt and the appeal has been dismissed in limine by the Ld. Addl. CIT(A)

& 122/Chny/2025 :- 3 -: without condoning the delay which will cause great injustice if income is not properly computed. The Ld AR, therefore prayed that the Ld. Addl. CIT(A) may be directed to admit the appeal and decide the issue on merit, in the interests of justice .

The Ld. Departmental Representative (DR), on the other hand, has relied on the orders of lower authorities.

We have heard the rival submissions, and perused the materials available on record. On perusal of the order of Ld. Addl. CIT(A), we note that there was a delay of 1352 days in filing the appeal before the Ld. Addl. CIT(A). The assessee has provided the reason for the delay, in filling appeal, as Covid Pandemic, but the Ld. Addl. CIT(A) did not accept the explanation and dismissed the appeal in limine. We have given considerable thought to the matter, and are of the opinion that there was sufficient cause for not presenting appeal within time, therefore the Ld. Addl. CIT(A) should have admitted the appeal and decided the case on merits. We accordingly, remand the matter back to the file of Ld. CIT(A) with a direction to condone the delay and adjudicate the appeal on merits. We also direct the assessee to appear before the Ld. Addl. CIT(A) on the date of hearing without fail and furnish complete details for fresh consideration. In the view of the & 122/Chny/2025 :- 4 -: above, the appeal filed the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes only.

We find that the identical issue is involved in assessee’s appeal for A.Ys 2019-20 also and accordingly, our adjudication above in A.Y 2018-19 applies mutatis mutandis therein also. Therefore, for the similar reasons, we direct the Ld. Addl. CIT(A) to condone the delay and adjudicate the appeal on merits. Accordingly, the appeal filed by the assessee in is allowed for statistical purposes only.

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced on 26th March, 2025.

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →