THE PROPERTY ASSOCIATION OF BAPTIST CHURCHES PVT. LTD.,CHENNAI vs. ITO, EXEMPTION WARD-3,, CHENNAI

Years: 2019-20 The Property Association of Baptist The Income Tax Officer (Exemption), Churches Private Limited, Ward-3, No.903, Tower E2 Ekanta North Town Chennai Stephension Road, Perambur, Chennai-600 012. [PAN: AABCT2815J] (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) अपीलार्थी की ओर से/ Assessee by : Shri P.M.Kathir, Advocate प्रत्यर्थी की ओर से /Revenue by : Ms.Sheila Parthasarthy, Addl.CIT सुिवाई की तारीख/Date of Hearing : 04.12.2024 घोर्णा की तारीख /Date of Pronouncement : 22.01.2025 आदेश / O R D E R PER AMITABH SHUKLA, A.M :

This appeal is filed against the order bearing DIN & Order No.ITBA/APL/S/250/2023-24/1061737725(1) dated 29.02.2024 of the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax [herein after “CIT(A), for the assessment year 2019-20. Through the aforesaid appeal the assesse has challenged order u/s 250 dated 29.02.2024 passed by AD/JCIT(1)-4, Bengaluru. 2.0 It has been noted that there is a delay of 133 days in the case, in filing of this appeal before the tribunal. In its affidavit the president of Page - 1 - of 4 assesse trust has pleaded that he was very sick and admitted to hospital. As a result of which the present appeal was delayed. It was submitted that the delay was neither willful nor wanton. The assesse submitted that there will not be case of any non-compliance now. We have considered the justification put forth by the assesse and we are satisfied with their adequacy. We are also conscious of the fact that no litigant gains by intentionally delaying its own matters. The Ld. DR did not pose any serious objections to the delay. Accordingly, we hereby condone the delay and proceed to adjudicate this appeal. 3.0 At the outset, the Ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted that there was a delay of 260 days in filing the appeal before the Ld.CIT(A) which was not condoned by him on account of insufficiency of cause. Before the ld.CIT(A) the assessee had submitted that the order u/s 143(1) dated 14.08.2020 passed by CPC was not communicated to the applicant and that the assessee chose to appeal upon seeing the same on the website. On merits, the Ld.CIT(A) held that the assessee had not filed Form-9A in support of its claim of exemptions. Before the Ld. CIT(A) the assessee premised that he was not aware of Form-9A but had got filed Form-10B before submitting the return of income and that Form-9A was also filed before filing the appeal. The Id.DR would like to rely upon the order of the authorities below.

Page - 2 - of 4 4.0 We have heard rival submissions in the light of material available on records. We have noted that the Ld. CIT(A) has not condoned assessee’s delay in filing of appeal before him in a cryptic and summary manner without analyzing the matter properly. On the issue of merits also he has in principle confirmed the addition for want of timely filing of Form-9A. We are conscious of the fact that no litigant gains by intentionally delaying its own matters and by making technical / procedural mistakes. The assessee on its own part though cannot absolve himself of delaying its filing and not complying with procedural requirements contributing to waste of precious time of appellate authorities. The Ld. DR argued that the assessee is habitual defaulter and costs be imposed in case the matte is to be sent back to lower authorities for readjudication. Be that as it may be, we are of the view that ends of justice would be met if the assessee is given one more opportunity to present its case before the Ld.CIT(A). Accordingly we set aside the order of lower authorities and direct the Ld.CIT(A) to readjudicate the matter after condoning the delay and considering adequacy of Form-9A filed by the assessee subject to payment of cost of Rs.5,000/- by the assessee to the Tamil Nadu State Legal Services Authority at Hon’ble High Court of Madras within 30 days of the receipt of this order. Accordingly all the grounds of appeal raised by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes.