Loading judgment…
Facts
The assessee preferred appeals against orders confirming disallowance of exemption, leading to demand, due to a significant delay in filing appeals before the CIT(A). The CIT(A) dismissed the appeals for being barred by limitation, citing a delay of 3276 days for AY 2014-15 and 2903 days for AY 2015-16.
Held
The Tribunal held that the reasons provided by the assessee for the inordinate delay were vague and general, not inspiring confidence. Despite the assessee's argument about not being aware of the demand and the complexity of their affairs, the Tribunal found no infirmity in the CIT(A)'s order dismissing the appeals due to the gross delay.
Key Issues
Whether the delay in filing appeals before the CIT(A) was justifiable, and if not, whether the CIT(A) was correct in dismissing the appeals on the grounds of limitation.
Sections Cited
250, 11, 12, 143(1), 12AA, 226
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “SMC” BENCH, AHMEDABAD
Before: SHRI SANJAY GARG
आदेश आदेश/O R D E R आदेश आदेश
The above two appeals have been preferred by the assessee against orders passed by the Ld.Commissioner of Income- Tax(Appeals), ADDL/JCIT(A)-10, Mumbai [hereinafter referred to as “ld.CIT(A)] both dated 21.03.205 under section 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 ("the Act" for short) for the assessment year 2014-15 and 2015-16. Since common issue is raised in both the appeals, for the sake convenience, we dispose of both the appeals by this common order.
The assessee, in this appeal, is aggrieved by the action of the ld.CIT(A) in confirming the addition made by the Assessing Officer (“AO”) by way of disallowance of exemption under sections 11 and 12 and 736/Ahd/2025 2 of the Act of Rs.14,89,170/-. The assessee has taken the following grounds of appeal:
“1.1 The order u/s. 250 passed on 21.03.2025 by Addl./JCIT(A)-10, Mumbai (for short "CIT(A)") for A.Y.2014-15 declining to condone the delay of 3276 days in filing the appeal in spite of having sufficient cause and thereby confirming disallowance of exemptions u/s 11 & 12 of Rs. 14,89,170/-and raising demand of RS. 5,86,170/- is wholly illegal, unlawful and against the principles of natural justice. 2.1 The Ld. CIT(A) has grievously erred in law and or on facts in upholding the rejection of condonation of delay in filing the appeal in spite of having sufficient cause and thereby confirming disallowance of exemptions u/s 11 & 12 of Rs. 14,89,170/- and raising demand of RS.5,86,170/- 3.1 That in the facts and circumstances of the case as well as in law, there was sufficient cause for delay in filing the appeal before NFAC.CIT(A) after a long time so that the same should have been condoned.”
A perusal of the impugned order of the ld.CIT(A) would reveal that the ld.CIT(A) has dismissed the appeal of the assessee being barred by limitation by 3276 days. The ld.counsel for the assessee has submitted the reasons for the delay in the shape of a chart, which for the sake of ready reference, is reproduced as under:
Sr. Date Particulars No. 1 03.01.2011 Appellant trust settled under the deed 2 22.03.2011 Trust registered under BPT Act A/401 6/Ahd 3 28.03.2017 Registration u/s 12AA of I.T. Act w.e.f 21.09.2016 4 26.06.2015 Accounts for FY 2014-15 audited by K Parekh Associates, Bhavnagar 5 29.09.2014 ITR for AY 2014-1 5 filed 6 28.02.2016 Intimation u/s 143(1) for ITR of AY 2014-15 and demand raised 7 30.09.2015 Original ITR for AY 2015-16 filed 8 30.03.2017 Intimation u/s 143(1) for AY 2015-16 and demand raised 9 12.09.2016 Accounts for FY 2014-15 audited by K Parekh Associates 10 30.09.2015 Accounts for FY 2015-16 audited by 11 30.09.2015 ITR for AY 2016-1 7 filed 12 Not Filed Accounts for FY 2016-17 audited by 13 Not Filed ITR for AY 201 7-1 8 filed 14 07.11.2017 Accounts for FY 2017-18 audited by 15 Not Filed ITR for AY 2018-1 9 filed 16 Not Filed Accounts for FY 2018-19 audited.by 17 31.10.2019 ITR for AY 2019-20 filed 18 31.10.2019 Accounts for FY 2019-20 audited by 19 09.09.2021 ITR for AY 2020-21 filed 20 05.01.2022 Accounts for FY 2020-21 audited by 21 06.01.2022 ITR for AY 2 02 1-2 2 filed 22 06.01.2022 Accounts for FY 2021-22 audited by 23 09.10.2022 ITR for AY 2022-23 filed 24 Accounts for FY 2022-23 audited by 25 21.10.2023 ITR for AY 2023-24 filed 26 Accounts for FY 2023-24 audited by 27 29.01.2024 ITR for AY 2024-2 5 filed 28 Accounts for FY 2024-25 audited by and 736/Ahd/2025 4 29 31/03/2018 M/s Keyur Parekh Associated at Bhavangar had resigned and New CA Shri Nikunjbhai Trivedi Appointed from 01.04.2019 30 26/11/2018 Shri Late. Jayantilal Manishankar [aged : 75 ], was expired as 26.11.2018, who was looking after books of accounts and income tax filing work. But, he was not aware this intimation 143(1) of I T Act.
31 26/11/2018 To There was no recovery proceeding during 26.11.2018 to : 22/01/2025 22.01.2025.
32 22/01/2025 Proceedings under section: 226 for A Y 2015-16 letter was issued and delivered at Trust Registered Address at Pandya Chashmawala, opp.. Gopal Tower, Maninagar , Ahmedabad. -380008.
33 The trustees had a meeting with the tax consultant K Parekh in respect of any outstanding demand and later on contacted AO to ascertain the nature of demand 34 09/09/2022 Notice issued at mail id of kparekhasso@gmail.com 35 12/02/2025 We filed appeal before CIT(A) / NFAC for both A Y 2014-15 & 2015-16 with delay application in form of Songadhnamu 36 21/03/2025 The CIT(A)/ NFAC dismissed appeal on the ground of delay 37 07/04/2025 The appellant filed appeal before ITAT
4. The ld.counsel for the assessee has submitted that the activities of the assessee-trust are being carried out at Ahmedabad. The ld.counsel for the assessee, in this behalf has further explained as under:
“3. The applicant states that the activities of the applicant trust are being carried on at Ahmedabad having boarding at Ghatlodiya. Since Shri Shahshikant B. Pandya of Maninagar is taking keen interest in the activities of said boarding, the address of the appellant Trust was given of his shop i.e. Pandya Chasmawala, Opp. Gopal Tower and 736/Ahd/2025 5 Maninagar Ahmedabad so that all correspondence used to be at this address and thereafter, the said papers were sent to Boarding office by late Shri Jayantilal Manilal Joshi, Treasurer of the trust at the relevant time and looking after the accounts and other work/matters for further action at Bhavnagar because Shri Dinmanishankar Ratilal Rajyguru, the founder & key trustee of this Trust, aged about 82 years at present and was residing earlier at Ghogha Octori Naka Gayatrinagar Bhavnagar who used to hand over the accounts, letters, communications etc. to the local auditor CA Shri Keyur Parekh. He was carrying out the audit and taxation work of the trust at the relevant time. The aforesaid trustees were fully depended upon the said auditor because they are not highly educated (less than matriculation) except Shri D.R. Rajyaguru.
Recently the appellant Trust received notice dt 22.01.2025 from the office of ITO Ward-2 Exemp.. Ahmedabad stating that the demand of RS. 5,86,1707- for A.Y. 2014-15 was outstanding since 30.3.2017. Hence the trustees (who were totally in dark about it) started making inquiry about this demand with the said shop of Pandya Chasmawala and even met the concerned officer to get the details when they came to know that the Dept. had rejected exemption u/s 11 & 12 and thereby raised this demand. They met the consultant and even the retired ITOs to seek advice for necessary action to set right this demand., They even met the auditor who was looking after the Income tax work but he also pleaded ignorance.”
I have heard rival submissions and gone through the record. The reasons explained by the assessee-trust are vague and general for inordinately long delay of about nine years in preferring the appeal before the ld.CIT(A). The ld.CIT(A) has duly recorded that the reasons explained by the assessee did not inspire confidence. He has noted that the assessee-trust is getting accounts audited well in time. It has been filing return of income for subsequent years also in time. The assessee had been complying with other statutory compliances on time. He observed that it showed that the assessee deliberately, for the reasons known to the trustees, had chosen not to file the appeal for the year under consideration, despite sufficient knowledge of passing of the intimation order under section 143(1) of the Act. He, therefore, held that the delay, by putting burden upon each other by the trustees and employees of the assessee, is not justifiable. The and 736/Ahd/2025 6 assessee trust has failed to give plausible reason for long delay of 3276 days.
After hearing the submissions of the ld.counsel for the assessee, I am not convinced with the reasons given by the ld.AR of the assessee. I do not find any infirmity in the order of the ld.CIT(A) in dismissing the appeal of the assessee for want of limitation.
In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed.
ITA No.736/Ahd/2025 – Asstt.Year 2015-16
In this appeal, there was a long delay of 2903 days in filing the appeal before the ld.CIT(A).
Identical reason has been given in this appeal also by the assessee for condonation of delay. In view of my finding given I do not find any infirmity in the order of the ld.CIT(A) in dismissing the appeal of the assessee for Asst.Year 2015-16 also being barred by limitation. Thus, the appeal of the assessee is hereby dismissed.
In the combined result, both the appeals of the assesse are, hereby, dismissed. Order pronounced on 24th December, 2025.