SHUBHKARAN TRIVENI FOUNDATION,KOLKATA vs. I.T.O., WARD - 1(3), EXEMPTION,, KOLKATA

None represented on behalf of the assessee. Shri Mrinmoy Basak, ld.Sr. DR appeared on behalf of the revenue.

The appeal of the assessee has been posted on multiple occasions and none represented on behalf of the assessee. As none represented on behalf of the assessee, therefore, the appeal of the assessee is being heard ex-parte qua the assessee.

A perusal of the order of the ld. Addl/JCIT(A) shows that the appeal of the assessee has been dismissed by the ld. Addl/JCIT(A) on account of delay. It is noticed that the intimation u/s.143(1) of the Act has been issued making an addition of Rs.44 lakhs received by the assessee towards corpus donation.

I have considered the submissions of the ld. Sr. DR and perused the orders of the authorities below. A perusal of the statement of facts filed by the assessee before the ld. Addl/JCIT(A) shows that in para 15 the assessee has given its reason for the delay of 85 days in filing the appeal. The reasons given by the assessee are plausible. Non-condoning the delay would be disadvantage to the assessee and condoning the delay would cause no loss to the revenue. Consequently, I am of the view that delay of 85 days in filing the appeal before the ld. Addl/JCIT(A) is liable to be condoned and I do so. A perusal of the facts of the present case clearly shows that the intimation u/s.143(1) of the Act has been issued without issuing the intimation as required under the first proviso to Section 143(1) of the Act. The reasons for the treatment of donation received by the assessee towards the corpus as income of the assessee, has not been intimated by the ld. CPC. This being so, I am of the view that the intimation suffers from infirmity which is incurable. Consequently, the intimation issued u/s.143(1) of the Act is unsustainable and the same stands quashed.