M/S BHARATH ELECTRONICS AMBEDKAR CREDIT SOCIETY LIMITED ,BANGALORE vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-6(3)(1), BANGALORE

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL BANGALORE BENCH “ A ” : BANGALORE BEFORE SHRI CHANDRA POOJARI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SMT. BEENA PILLAI, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA Nos.2894 to 2897/Bang/2018 (Assessment Year: 2008-09 to 2011-12) M/s. Bharat Electronics Ambedkar Credit Society Ltd., 77/3, Jalahalli Post, Bengaluru-560 013 ….Appellant PAN AAATB 5295J Vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward 6(3)(1), Bengaluru. ……Respondent. Assessee By: Smr. R. Pratibha, Advcate. Revenue By: Shri Kannan Narayan, JCIT (D.R)

Date of Hearing : 10.12.2020. Date of Pronouncement : 18.12.2020.

O R D E R PER SHRI CHANDRA POOJARI, A.M. : These four appeals filed by the assessee are directed against the different orders of Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-1, Bengaluru for the Assessment Years 2008-09, 2009-10, 2010-11 and 2011-12. 2. In ITA Nos.2894/Bang/2018 to 2896/Bang/2018, the assessee challenges the ex-parte order passed by the CIT(Appeals) without admitting the appeals on the

2 ITA Nos.2894 to 2897/Bang/2018 reason of non-appearance by the assessee before him. The appeals were filed belatedly by the assessee before the CIT(Appeals) as well as before the Tribunal as follows : ITA No. Delay in filing the appeal Delay in filing the appeal before the CIT(Appeals) before the Tribunal. 2894/Bang/2018 150 days 191 days 2895/Bang/2018 115 days 191 days 2896/Bang/2018 115 days 237 days

Firstly, there was delay in filing appeals before the CIT(Appeals) and also before Tribunal. There was no response by the assessee in pursuing the appeals before the CIT(Appeals). He dismissed these appeals in limine for the assessment years viz. 2008-09, 2009-10 and 2010-11. The assessee filed condonation petitions for all these assessment years in filing before the CIT(Appeals) as well as before the Tribunal which was due to assessee's premises was located in rented building on HMT Main Road which was demolished by the authorities for widening of Road, then the assessee's office was shifted to new premises and it took time to trace the documents. Further the assessee is not having qualified staff to attend day to day functions and there was elected body to take a decision of filing of these appeals. Since there was administrative delay in taking a decision by elected body it took time to file appeals before the various authorities.

3 ITA Nos.2894 to 2897/Bang/2018 3. We have carefully gone through the reasons advanced in its Affidavit filed by the assessee. Before the CIT(Appeals), the assessee case was not properly represented. Hence the appeals are dismissed in limine by the CIT(Appeals). It take reasonable time to file the appeals before the Tribunal. The assessee explained that administrative reasons for delay in filing the appeals before the CIT(Appeals) as well as before this Tribunal. In earlier occasion also, similar delay was caused in filing the appeal for Assessment Year 2007-08 before Tribunal. The Tribunal in ITA No.2098/Bang/2018 vide order dt.5.10.2016 condoned the delay and admitted the appeal and restored the matter to the CIT(Appeals) for reconsideration. Taking a consistent view, we condone these delays in fling the appeals and it is appropriate to remit the disputed issues to the file of CIT(Appeals) to decide the matter on merit. Accordingly, all these appeals under consideration are remitted to the file of CIT(Appeals) to decide on merit and according to law. 4. In the Assessment Year 2011-12 in ITA No.2897/Bang/2018, there was a delay of 272 days in filing the appeal before the Tribunal, the reason for delay in filing the appeal advanced by the assessee is same reasons as discussed in para 3 above. We are inclined to condone the delay in filing appeal before Tribunal and admit the appeal for adjudication. In the impugned assessment year, there was addition by the Assessing Officer with regard to contract receipts at Rs.32,02,178

4 ITA Nos.2894 to 2897/Bang/2018 and denial of exemption under Section 10(27) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 ('the Act') at Rs.15,61,888 by the lower authorities. There is a difference between the contract receipts shown in TDS Certificate and Books of Accounts to the tune of Rs.32,02,178. The difference in amounts was added as income of the assessee and the assessee has not furnished the requisite material to claim deduction under Section 10(27) of the Act. 5. Before us, the learned Authorised Representative submitted that the assessee could reconcile the difference between the TDS Certificates and assessee's Books of Accounts. The learned Authorised Representative also submitted that the assessee would furnish necessary evidences in support of the claim of deduction u/s.10(27) of the Act before the tax authorities. Accordingly in the interest of justice, we remit this issue to the file of Assessing Officer for fresh consideration. The appeal in ITA No.2897/Bang/2018 for the Assessment Year 2011-12 is remitted to the file of Assessing Officer for fresh consideration. 6. In the result, all these appeals are partly allowed for statistical purposes. Pronounced in the open court on the date mentioned on the caption page. Sd/- Sd/- (SMT. BEENA PILLAI) (CHANDRA POOJARI) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Dated: 18.12.2020. *Reddy GP

5 ITA Nos.2894 to 2897/Bang/2018 Copy to

By order

Assistant Registrar Income-tax Appellate Tribunal Bangalore