NANDASAN JUTH KELAVANI MANDAL,MEHSANA vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD- EXEMPTION, PALANPUR

PDF · subscribers
ITA 1591/AHD/2024Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad03 January 2025AY 2018-19Bench: DR. BRR KUMAR (Vice President), SHRI TR SENTHIL KUMAR (Judicial Member)1 pages
AI SummaryPartly Allowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal noted that the primary adjudication was not done by the revenue authorities. Both parties agreed to remand the matter. The Tribunal directed the Ld. CIT(A) to condone the delay and pass an order on merits after hearing the assessee.

What were the facts?

The assessee, a public charitable trust running an education institute, was recognized under Section 80G. For the assessment year, the income was 'Nil' and no return was filed. The AO completed the assessment under Section 147 read with Section 144, determining a total income of Rs. 63,26,778. The assessee claimed non-compliance due to remote location and prayed for an opportunity to be heard.

What were the issues?

Whether the CIT(A) erred in dismissing the appeal without affording an opportunity of hearing, and if the matter should be remanded for fresh adjudication on merits.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 80G,Section 139,Section 147,Section 144,Section 69,Section 250,Section 272A(2)(e)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “C” BENCH, AHMEDABAD

Before: DR. BRR KUMAR & SHRI TR SENTHIL KUMAR&

For Appellant: Shri Anil Kshatriya, AR
For Respondent: Shri Rignesh Das, Sr. DR
Pronounced: 03.01.2025

Heard together (2 matters)

I.TA. No.1625/Ahd/2024
I.T.A No.1591/Ahd/2024

Read from the judgment's own cause title. This page is filed under one of them.

PER: DR. BRR KUMAR, VICE PRESIDENT: The captioned two appeals have been filed by the Assessee against the separate orders passed by the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)/National Faceless Appeal Centre(NFAC), Delhi vide order dated 16.07.2024 & 12.07.2024 passed for the Assessment Years 2016-17 & 2018-19.

& 1591/Ahd/2024 Asst.Years –2016-17 & 2018-19 - 2–

1.

On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Order so passed by the Ld. CIT(A) NFAC is bad in law, illegal, besides being in violation of the principle of natural justices & equity, as having been passed without affording any opportunity of being heard by issuance of notice of hearing or calling for considering material facts narrated at Column no. 14 & 15 of Form No. 35 and further by not adjudicating the appeal on its merit; as such liable to be quashed and set aside.

2. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) NFAC has grossly erred in dismissing grounds of appeal so raised before him and not adjudicating the appeal on merits and thereby, further erred in denying justice, without any justification. As a consequent, penalty of Rs.2,97,800/- levied/u/s.272A(2)(e) of the Act may kindly be deleted. The appellant craves leave to add, alter, amend and/or withdraw any of the grounds or ground of appeal either before or at the time of appeal hearing.

3.

The Assessee has taken the following grounds of appeals in for AY 2016-17.

1. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Order so passed by the Ld. CIT(A) NFAC is bad in law, illegal, besides being in violation of the principle of natural justices & equity, as having been passed without affording any opportunity of being heard by issuance of notice of hearing as mandated under sub-section (1) of section 250 of the I.T. Act, 1961 ('Act' in short).

2.

On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) NFAC has grossly erred in dismissing grounds of appeal

so raised before him or calling for considering material facts narrated at Column no. 14 & 15 of Form No. 35 and further by not adjudicating the appeal on its merit; as such liable to be quashed and set aside.

3. The Ld. CIT(A) has further erred in denying justice, without any justification. As a consequence, addition of Rs.63,26,778/- representing unexplained money u/s.69 of the Act so made by the AO may kindly deleted or denovo restored backed to the filed of JAO for fresh adjudication with a permission to adduce adequate evidences on record and reasonable opportunity of being heard.

& 1591/Ahd/2024 Asst.Years –2016-17 & 2018-19 - 3– The appellant raves leave to add, alter, amend and/or withdraw any of the grounds or ground of appeal either before or at the time of appeal hearing.

4.

The facts of the case are that the assessee is a Public Charitable Trust running education institute from 2006. The assessee has been duly recognized for purpose of exemption u/s.80G of the Income tax Act, 1961. The appellant income for the year under consideration was ‘Nil’ and did not filed return of income u/s.139 of the Act. Therefore, the AO completed the assessment u/s.147 r.w.s 144 of the Act on 28.12.2023, determining total income at Rs.63,26,778/-

5.

At the outset, the Ld.Counsel for the assessee submitted that the assessee-trust is being situated at the remote areas and therefore the assessee could not comply with the notices genuinely without any malafide intention. It was submitted that the Ld.CIT(A) has also not admitted appeal filed by the assessee owing to the delay and prayed that given an opportunity, due compliance will be made by the assessee before the Ld.CIT(A). The Ld. DR fairly submitted that since the primary adjudication has not been undertaken by the Revenue Authorities, the matter be remanded to Ld. CIT(A). Hence, keeping in view the submissions of both the parties, the appeal of the assessee is hereby remanded to Ld. CIT(A) to adjudicate on merits of the case.

6.

In the result the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes.

& 1591/Ahd/2024 Asst.Years –2016-17 & 2018-19 - 4– for AY 2016-17 7. We have examined the facts on record. The Ld. DR submitted that in the fitness of the things the matter may be restored to the file of Ld. CIT(A), with costs. We find that the prayer of the revenue to remand the matter to the Ld. CIT(A) is acceptable. The Ld. Counsel for the assessee has agreed to pay a cost of Rs.2000/- on account of non-compliance before the revenue authorities. Since the primary adjudication has not been done by the first appellate authority, we direct the Ld.CIT(A) to condone the delay and pass the order on merits of case.

8.

In the result the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes. This Order pronounced in Open Court on 03.01.2025

Sd/- Sd/- (TR SENTHI KUMAR) (DR. BRR KUMAR) JUDICIAL MEMBER VICE PRESIDENT (True Copy) Ahmedabad; Dated 03 .01.2025 Manish, Sr. PS TRUE COPY आदेश क� �ितिलिप अ�ेिषत/Copy of the Order forwarded to : अपीलाथ� / The Appellant 1. 2. ��यथ� / The Respondent. 3. संबंिधत आयकर आयु� / Concerned CIT 4. आयकर आयु�(अपील) / The CIT(A)- 5. िवभागीय �ितिनिध, आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, अहमदाबाद / DR, ITAT, Ahmedabad 6. गाड� फाईल / Guard file. आदेशानुसार/ BY ORDER,

More judgments on Section 80G

All 6,482 judgments and leading authorities on Section 80G →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →