SHREE VARIA PRAJAPATI CHO WISHI VNATISAMAJ KALYAN & KELAVANT TRUST,AHMEDABAD vs. I.T.O, WARD 2 EXEMPTION, AHMEDABAD, AHMEDABAD

PDF · subscribers
ITA 347/AHD/2025Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad13 May 2025AY 2020-214 pages
AI SummaryPartly Allowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal condoned the delay of 44 days in filing one of the appeals. It was observed that the CIT(A) had not given attention to the reasons for the delay and had not decided the matter on merits. The Tribunal also noted that the Assessing Officer had not taken into account the details submitted by the assessee. Consequently, the Tribunal remanded the matters back to the Assessing Officer for proper adjudication of the issues in accordance with the provisions of the Income Tax Law. The assessee was to be given an opportunity of hearing, following the principles of natural justice, and directed to file details before the Assessing Officer. Both appeals were partly allowed for statistical purposes.

What were the facts?

The assessee, Shree Varia Prajapati Cho Wishi Vnatisamaj Kalyan & Kelavant Trust, filed returns for Assessment Years (AY) 2020-21 and 2021-22. For AY 2020-21, the return showing nil income was processed under Section 143(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, determining total income at Rs. 32,93,745/-. The assessee appealed to the CIT(A), who dismissed the appeal. For AY 2021-22, a similar disallowance of Rs. 14,48,093/- was made. The assessee filed appeals before the ITAT challenging the orders of the CIT(A). There was a delay of 44 days in filing one of the appeals before the Tribunal.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the assessment order passed under Section 143(1) and confirmed by the first appellate authority under Section 250 is bad in law and deserved to be uncalled for? (Question of law) 2. Whether the Assessing Officer and the first appellate authority erred in making and confirming the disallowance of expenditure of Rs. 32,93,745/- for AY 2020-21 and Rs. 14,48,093/- for AY 2021-22, and whether the same deserves to be deleted? (Question of mixed law and fact) Assessee's contentions: The CIT(A) dismissed the appeal on the ground of delay without deciding the matter on merits or considering the reasons for the delay. The assessee was not given an opportunity of hearing by the Assessing Officer or the CIT(A). The disallowance of expenditure is bad in law and should be deleted. Revenue's contentions: The Revenue relied upon the assessment order and the order of the CIT(A).

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 143(1),Section 250

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, AHMEDABAD “SMC BENCH

Before: Dr. BRR Kumar & Ms. Suchitra Kamble

For Appellant: Shri Chirag Shah, A.R
For Respondent: Shri Ravindra, Sr. D.R

आदेश/ORDER

Per Suchitra Kamble, Judicial Member:

1.

These two appeals are filed against the order dated 18- 10-2024 passed by CIT(A)/[Addl/JCIT(A)], Patna for assessment years 2020-21 & 2021-22.

2.

The grounds of appeals are as under:-

& 355/Ahd/2025 Shree Varia Prajapati Cho Wishit Vnatisamaj Kalyan & Kelavant Trust, A.Y. 2020-21& 2021-22

“1. The assessment order passed u/s 143(1) of Income Tax Act by the Assessing Officer and confirmed by the first appellate authority u/s 250 is bad in law and deserved to be uncalled for.

2. The assessing officer as well as first appellate authority has erred in law and on facts in making and confirming respectively the disallowance of expenditure of Rs. 32,93,745/-. The same deserves to be deleted.

3. The appellant craves to reserve his right to add, alter, amend, or delete any ground of appeal during the course of hearing.

Total Tax Effect: Rs. 9,63,660”

ITA No. 355/Ahd/2025 A.Y. 2021-22

“1. The assessment order passed u/s 143(1) of Income Tax Act by the Assessing Officer and confirmed by the first appellate authority u/s 250 is bad in law and deserved to be uncalled for.

2. The assessing officer as well as first appellate authority has erred in law and on facts in making and confirming respectively the disallowance of expenditure of Rs. 14,48,093/-. The same deserves to be deleted.

3. The appellant craves to reserve his right to add, alter, amend, or delete any ground of appeal during the course of hearing.

Total Tax Effect Rs. 2,96,570”

3.

The assessee is a trust and filed return of income for assessment year 2020 on 30-03-2021 showing total income of Rs. nil. The return was processed u/s. 143(1) of the Act on 25-12-2021 and total income was determined at Rs. 32,93,745/-.

& 355/Ahd/2025 Shree Varia Prajapati Cho Wishit Vnatisamaj Kalyan & Kelavant Trust, A.Y. 2020-21& 2021-22 4. Being aggrieved by the assessment order, the assessee filed before the CIT(A). The CIT(A) dismissed the appeal of the assessee.

5.

The Ld. A.R. submitted that the CIT(A) dismissed the appeal of the assessee on the ground of delay and has not decided the matter on merit and also not taking reason of the assessee for the delay before the CIT(A). The Ld. A.R. submitted that the assessee was not given opportunity both by the Assessing Officer and before the CIT(A).

6.

The Ld. D.R. relied upon the assessment order and the order of the CIT(A).

7.

We have heard both the parties and perused the materials available on record. There is a delay of 44 days in filing the present appeal being , the same is condoned. After perusal of the orders, it appears that the CIT(A) has not given attention on the reasons for delay in filing the appeal. On perusal of the CIT(A)’s order, delay in filing the appeal u/s. 250 has been explained by the assessee before CIT(A). The Ld. CIT(A) has not decided the matter on merit. In fact, the Assessing Officer has also not taken into account the details submitted by the assessee. Hence the matter is remanded back to the file of Assessing Officer for proper adjudication of the issues as per the provisions of the Income Tax Law. The assessee be given opportunity of hearing by following principles of natural justice and the details should be filed & 355/Ahd/2025 Shree Varia Prajapati Cho Wishit Vnatisamaj Kalyan & Kelavant Trust, A.Y. 2020-21& 2021-22 by the assessee before the Assessing Officer. Thus, is partly allowed for statistical purposes. the same is identical hence the same directions are given to the Assessing Officer for adjudicating the issues as per Income Tax Law and the assessee be given opportunity by following principles of natural justice. Thus, is partly allowed for statistical purposes.

9.

In the result, both the appeals are partly allowed for statistical purposes.

Order pronounced in the open court on 13-05-2025 Sd/- Sd/- (Dr. BRR Kumar) (Suchitra Kamble) Vice President Judicial Member Ahmedabad : Dated 13/05/2025 आदेश क� ��त�ल�प अ�े�षत / Copy of Order Forwarded to:- 1. Assessee 2. Revenue 3. Concerned CIT 4. CIT (A) 5. DR, ITAT, Ahmedabad 6. Guard file. By order/आदेश से,

उप/सहायक पंजीकार आयकर अपील�य अ�धकरण, अहमदाबाद

Latest GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →