UDUPI SRI ADMAR MUTT EDUCATION COUNCIL,BANGALORE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, EXEMPTIONS, CIRCLE-1, BANGALORE

PER BEENA PILLAI, JUDICIAL MEMBER

Present appeals have been filed by assessee against order dated 16/09/2020 passed by the Ld.CIT(A)-14. 2. At the outset the Ld. counsel submitted that assessee had filed appeal before the Ld.ACIT(A) for the years under consideration with delay, the details of which are as under:

Page 2 of 6 ITA No.714-717/Bang/2020

2.1 He submitted that though the assessment order was received by assessee in time, it did not file any appeal against orders passed under section 143(3) of the Act, since the total income determined by the Ld.AO was ‘nil’, and there was no tax liability. 2.2 However while framing assessment for assessment year 2017-18, assessee claimed accumulation under section 11(2) of the Act, which was disallowed by the Ld.AO. 2.3 The Ld.AR submitted that, excess application in the earlier years was not allowed to be carried forwarded, and set off against the income for assessment year 2017-18 by the Ld.AO under section 11(2) of the Act. It was under this background that the assessee filed appeals against the assessment orders passed for the preceding assessment years belatedly, before the Ld.CIT(A). The Ld.CIT(A) did not condone the delay. 2.4 It is submitted that the assessee was under bona fide belief at the instruction of the authorised representative who handled the appeals that appeal need not be filed in the preceding assessment years as the income assessed was ‘nil’. 2.5 He thus submitted that in the interest of natural Justice and considering the bona fide act of the assessee in abiding by

Page 3 of 6 ITA No.714-717/Bang/2020

the advice from the then representative, the appeals may be directed to be heard on merits. 3. On the contrary the Ld.CIT.DR submitted that the delay was not condoned by the Ld.CIT(A) as assessee had not satisfactorily explained the reason for filing the appeal before the Ld.CIT(A) in proper manner. He placed reliance on the decision of ITAT Cochin bench in case of Catholic Syrian bank reported in 173 ITD 384. 3.1 However, he suggested that, the documents filed by assessee before this bench being additional evidences may be remanded to the Ld. CIT (A) for verification. 4. In the counter reply Ld.AR submitted that, the authorised representative Shri PN Maiya, C.A [M.No.015003]who advised assessee against filing appeals before the Ld.CIT(A) has filed letter dated 1/9/2021 expressing the same. It was also submitted that the Ld.Authorised Representative is willing to file an affidavit to that effect which can be subjected to verification. 5. We have perused submissions advanced by both sides in light of records placed before us. 5.1 We note that Hon’ble Cochin Bench of this Tribunal in case of Catholic Syrian Bank (supra) rejected application for condonation of delay since assessee failed to explain the reason that caused delay, by sufficient evidences/documentation. Assessee therein failed to establish bona fide that caused delay in filing the appeals. 5.2 However in the present facts of the case the Ld.AR placed on record letter filed by the then Ld.Authorised Representative

Page 4 of 6 ITA No.714-717/Bang/2020

who advised assessee. Assessee was not at fault in not filing the appeal is against the orders passed by Ld.AO under section 143(3) under such circumstances. At this juncture we are also aware of the principle that ignorance of law cannot be an excuse. However an impact of a particular view by the authorised representative could not be foreseen by assessee at that particular point and thereby abided by the advice. For fault of the Ld.Authorised Representative, assessee cannot be put into difficulty. 5.3 We place reliance on following observations by Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of Collector Land Acquisition Vs. Mst. Katiji & Ors. Reported in (1987) 167 ITR 471 wherein, Hon’ble Court observed as under:- “The Legislature has conferred the power to condone delay by enacting section 51 of the Limitation Act of 1963 in order to enable the courts to do substantial justice to parties by disposing of matters on de merits ". The expression “sufficient cause” employed by the Legislature is adequately elastic to enable the courts to apply the law in a meaningful manner which subserves the ends of justice that being the life-purpose of the existence of the institution of courts. It is common knowledge that this court has been making a justifiably liberal approach in matters instituted in this court. But the message does not appear to have percolated down to all the other courts in the hierarchy. And such a liberal approach is adopted on principle as it is realized that : 1. Ordinarily, a litigant does not stand to benefit by lodging an appeal late. 2. Refusing to condone delay can result in a meritorious matter being thrown out at the very threshold and cause of justice being defeated. As against this, when delay is condoned, the highest that can happen is that a cause would be decided on merits after hearing the parties. ......................................................1.Any appeal or any application, other than an application under any of the provisions of Order XXI of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, may be admitted after the prescribed period if the appellant or the applicant satisfies the court that he had sufficient

Page 5 of 6 ITA No.714-717/Bang/2020

cause for not preferring the appeal or making the application within such period.” 5.4 Considering the submissions by both sides and respectfully following the observation by Hon’ble Supreme Court, we find it fit to remand these appeals to the Ld.CIT(A). The Ld.CIT(A) shall verify the statements and the affidavits given by the authorised representative of assessee in accordance with law. We also direct that in the event the bona fides of the assessee stands explained, the delay has to be condoned and appeal must be heard on merits in accordance with law. Needless to say that proper opportunity of being heard must be granted to assessee in accordance with law. In the result the appeals filed by assessee stands allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced in the open court on 29th Sept, 2021 Sd/- Sd/- (CHANDRA POOJARI) (BEENA PILLAI) Accountant Member Judicial Member Bangalore, Dated, the 29th Sept, 2021. /Vms/

Copy to: 1. Appellant 2. Respondent 3. CIT 4. CIT(A) 5. DR, ITAT, Bangalore 6. Guard file By order

Assistant Registrar, ITAT, Bangalore

Page 6 of 6 ITA No.714-717/Bang/2020

Date Initi al 1. Draft dictated on On Sr.PS Dragon 2. Draft placed before -9-2021 Sr.PS author -9-2021 3. Draft proposed & placed JM/AM before the second member 4. Draft discussed/approved -9-2021 JM/AM by Second Member. 5. Approved Draft comes to -9-2021 Sr.PS/PS the Sr.PS/PS 6. Kept for pronouncement -9-2021 Sr.PS on 7. Date of uploading the -9-2021 Sr.PS order on Website 8. If not uploaded, furnish -- Sr.PS the reason 9. File sent to the Bench -9-2021 Sr.PS Clerk 10. Date on which file goes to the AR 11. Date on which file goes to the Head Clerk. 12. Date of dispatch of Order. 13. Draft dictation sheets are No Sr.PS attached