Loading judgment…
Facts
The assessee, a charitable society registered u/s 12AA, filed a 'NIL' return for AY 2018-19. The CPC processed the return, determining an income of ₹3.41 Cr and raising a demand of ₹1.43 Cr by treating income as chargeable u/s 11(3). Despite a subsequent Section 143(3) assessment with no additions, the assessee's rectification petition u/s 264 was dismissed. An appeal to the CIT(A) was also dismissed due to a 469-day delay, which the CIT(A) refused to condone.
Held
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) erred in not condoning the 469-day delay, given the peculiar facts of the case. It set aside the CIT(A)'s order and remanded the appeal back to the CIT(A) for disposal on merits, directing that the assessee be given a reasonable opportunity of being heard and that Rule 46A of the I.T. Rules, 1962 be followed.
Key Issues
Whether the CIT(A) was justified in not condoning the 469-day delay in filing the appeal; and whether the case should be remanded to the CIT(A) for disposal on merits.
Sections Cited
250, 143(3), 143(3A), 143(3B), 12AA, 10B, 11(3), 143(1), 264, 143(1)(a), 46A
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, KOLKATA ‘D’ BENCH, KOLKATA
Before: SHRI GEORGE MATHAN & SHRI RAKESH MISHRA
PER RAKESH MISHRA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER:
This appeal filed by the assessee is against the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-NFAC, Delhi [hereinafter referred to as Ld. 'CIT(A)'] passed u/s 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) for AY 2018-19 dated 05.03.2025, which has been passed against the assessment order u/s 143(3) r.w.s. 143(3A) and 143(3B) of the Act, dated 17.02.2021. 2. The assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal raising the following grounds of appeal:
“1. For that on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(A) erred in not condoning the delay in filing appeal before him in spite of the reasonable cause shown. I.T.A. No.: 576/KOL/2025 Assessment Year: 2018-19 The Salesian Siste₹
For that on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(A) ought to have reversed the action of the A.O. in assessing the income of the assessee as per the computation sheet given in the intimation u/s 143(1) of the Act and determining the sum payable as per the demand raised in the intimation u/s 143(1) of the Act.
For that on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(A) ought to have directed the A.O. to assess true income of the assessee by treating the receipts amounting to ₹ 3,41,09,928/- as accumulated funds as per section 11(2) not includable as income of the assessee in the previous year relevant to the A.Υ.: 2018-2019. 4. That the appellant craves leave to add alter or delete all or any of the grounds of appeal.”
Brief facts of the case are that the assessee is a charitable society and duly registered u/s 12AA of the Act and had filed the return of income for the year under consideration along with Form 10B on 30.12.2018 declaring ‘NIL’ income. However, the CPC while processing the return of income determined the total income of ₹3,41,09,928/- due to the fact that the assessee had admitted the income to be chargeable u/s 11(3) of the Act amounting to ₹3,41,09,928/-. Accordingly, the CPC raised demand of ₹1,43,99,556/- and processed the return u/s 143(1) of the Act. Subsequently, the assessee’s case was selected for limited scrutiny and the Assessing Officer (hereinafter referred to as Ld. 'AO') completed the assessment vide order u/s 143(3) of the Act dated 17.02.2021 without any additions and the total income was considered as per the order u/s 143(1) of the Act dated 20.03.2020. Aggrieved by the demand, the assessee filed a petition u/s 264 of the Act before the juri ictional CIT (Exemptions), Kolkata dated 08.03.2021 for rectifying the mistake made in the return of income. However, the Ld. CIT (Exemptions) dismissed the said petition vide order u/s 264 of the Act dated 26.03.2022 stating that any alteration to the return of income was not permissible u/s 264 of the Act. Aggrieved with the demand I.T.A. No.: 576/KOL/2025 Assessment Year: 2018-19 The Salesian Siste₹ raised by the CPC, the assessee filed an appeal before the Ld. CIT(A) who perused the written submission filed by the assessee and also the petition for condonation of delay but did not condone the delay of 469 days in filing the appeal and dismissed the appeal of the assessee by relying upon the decision of the ITAT, Chennai Bench in the case of Smt. Jumma Khan Pathar Nisha v The Income Tax Officer, Non Corporate Ward-12(1), Chennai ITA No. 983/Chny/2020 dated 23.05.2022 and other decisions and by holding as under: “5.10 In view of the above facts and judicial precedences cited supra, I am of the considered opinion that the appellant is well aware of the income tax procedure and it is also observed that the appellant has filed the present appeal after exhausting all remedies available for the mistake made by the appellant and requested for condonation of delay in filing of appeal. The delay in filing of appeal can be condoned only if there is a reasonable bonafide cause for such delay, whereas in the instant case, the reasons given by the appellant do not come under reasonable cause. It is also observed that the appellant has not submitted any reasonable cause for not filing an appeal against the intimation order u/s 143(1)(a) of the Act dated 20.03.2020. Hence the appellant's request for condonation of delay in filing the appeal is not acceptable without any reasonable cause. Accordingly, the delay in filing the present appeal is not condonable. Accordingly, the present appeal filed by the appellant is hereby dismissed.
In the result, the appeal is not admissible and dismissed.”
Aggrieved with the order of the Ld. CIT(A), the assessee has filed the appeal before the Tribunal.
Rival contentions were heard and the submissions made have been examined. The Ld. AR submitted that proper opportunity was not provided by the Ld. CIT(A).
We have considered the submissions made, gone through the facts of the case and perused the record and the order of the Ld. CIT(A). We have also gone through the submissions filed before the Ld. CIT(A). After examining the facts of the case and the law, we are of the view that I.T.A. No.: 576/KOL/2025 Assessment Year: 2018-19 The Salesian Siste₹ the delay in filing the appeal before the Ld. CIT(A) should have been condoned on the peculiar facts of the case and the appeal should have been decided on merits. We, therefore, deem it appropriate to set aside the order of the Ld. CIT(A) and restore the appeal back to the Ld. CIT(A) for disposal of the grounds of appeal taken by the assessee on merit by passing a speaking order. Needless to say, the assessee shall be given a reasonable opportunity of being heard to make any further submission it wants to make in support of its grounds of appeal and shall not seek unnecessary adjournments and rule 46A of the I.T. Rules, 1962 shall also be followed and an opportunity of being heard may be provided to the Ld. AO, if required. Accordingly, the grounds taken by the assessee in its appeal are partly allowed for statistical purposes.
In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced in the open Court on 27th October, 2025. [George Mathan] [Rakesh Mishra] Judicial Member Accountant Member Dated: 27.10.2025 Bidhan (Sr. P.S.) I.T.A. No.: 576/KOL/2025 Assessment Year: 2018-19 The Salesian Siste₹ Copy of the order forwarded to:
The Salesian Sisters, C/o Subash Agarwal & Associates, Advocates, Siddha Gibson, 1, Gibson Lane, Suite 213, 2nd Floor, Kolkata, West Bengal, 700069. 2. ITO, Ward-1(3), Exempt, Kolkata.
CIT(A)-NFAC, Delhi.
CIT-
CIT(DR), Kolkata Benches, Kolkata.
Guard File. //// By order