D M EDUCATIONAL & CHARITABLE SOCIETY,BARNALA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1, BARNALA
आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, च᭛डीगढ़ ᭠यायपीठ “एस.एम.सी” , च᭛डीगढ़
IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, CHANDIGARH BENCHES, “SMC”
CHANDIGARH
HEARING THROUGH: PHYSICAL MODE
᮰ी िवᮓम ᳲसह यादव, लेखा सद᭭य
BEFORE: SHRI. VIKRAM SINGH YADAV, AM
आयकर अपील सं./ ITA No. 854 & 855/CHD/2024
िनधाᭅरण वषᭅ / Assessment Year : 2018-19 & 2021-22
D M Educational & Charitable
Society
VPO Raisar Patiala, Barnala, Punjab-
148101
बनाम
The ITO
Ward-1,
Barnala
᭭थायी लेखा सं./PAN NO:AAAAD9463D
अपीलाथᱮ/Appellant
ᮧ᭜यथᱮ/Respondent
िनधाᭅᳯरती कᳱ ओर से/Assessee by :
Shri Jatinder Sharma, C.A राज᭭व कᳱ ओर से/ Revenue by :
Shri Vivek Vardhan, Addl.CIT
सुनवाई कᳱ तारीख/Date of Hearing :
07/01/2025
उदघोषणा कᳱ तारीख/Date of Pronouncement : 09/01/2025
आदेश/Order
PER VIKRAM SINGH YADAV, AM
These are two appeals filed by the Assessee against the respective orders of the Ld. CIT(A) Addl/JCIT(A)-5, Mumbai each dt. 11/06/2024 pertaining to Assessment Year
2018-19 & 2021-22 respectively.
Both these appeals were heard together and are being disposed off by this consolidated order.
With the consent of both the parties, the appeal in ITA No. 854/Chd/2024 for the A.Y. 2018-19 was taken up for discussion. During the course of hearing, the Ld. AR submitted that the assessee has filed the appeal before the Ld. Addl. CIT against the intimation under section 143(1) dt. 40/03/2020 passed by the CPC, Bangalore and the 2
said appeal has been dismissed by the Ld. Addl. CIT on account of delay in filing the appeal. It was submitted that the reason why the appeal was filed late was for the reason that the intimation order was sent on the email id which belongs to the previous
Counsel and he neither informed the assessee nor acted upon the intimation order.
Further, due to outbreak of Covid 19 pandemic, the intimation order was not delivered physically to the assessee. In this regard an Affidavit duly executed by the authorized signatory of the assessee society alongwith written application for condonation of delay was submitted before the Ld. Addl. CIT. It was submitted that during the course of video conferencing hearing, the Ld. Addl CIT asked for the Affidavit from the previous
Counsel which was duly submitted wherein he has admitted that the intimation was delivered on the said email id and unfortunately the same remain unattended. It was submitted that the previous Counsel has not disowned the said email id rather the said email id is registered on departmental portal by the previous Counsel only. It was submitted that only when the assessee received a telephonic call from the juri ictional
AO regarding the recovery of the outstanding demand, it came to know that previous
Counsel has not taken any action against the intimation order so passed under section 143(1) of the Act. It was accordingly submitted that the delay caused was purely a mistake on the part of previous Counsel and the assessee could not be blamed for the negligence or inaction on the part of the previous Counsel. It was accordingly submitted that the delay so happened in filing the appeal before first appellate authority be condoned and the matter be heard on merits and in support, reliance was also placed on the findings of Coordinate Delhi Bench in case of SMC Capitals Ltd.,
New Delhi Vs. Assessee, Delhi in ITA No. 1342/Del/2010. 4. It was further submitted that the previous Counsel who has filed the return of income has selected the wrong exemption provisions under section 10(23C)(vi) instead of Section 10(23C)(iiiad) of the Act. In this regard, it was submitted that the assessee society is a charitable educational institution existing solely for education purpose and not for the purpose of profit and having the gross receipts of Rs. 78,83,619/- which are less than the limit prescribed under section 10(23C)(iiiad) of the Act. It was accordingly submitted that since the wrong exemption provision have been stated by the previous
Counsel while filing the return of income, the CPC Bangalore has determined the tax amounting to Rs. 72,321/- as the approval details were not filed in the return of income.
It was further submitted that for the A.Y. 2019-20 , 2022-23 and 2023-24, the assessee has claimed exemption under section 10(23C)(iiiad) of the Act and which has been duly allowed while processing the return of income by CPC Bangalore. In this regard, it was submitted that the assessee has filed rectification application under section 154
alongwith the revised computation chart and revised Income Tax Return with Juri ictional AO Ward-1, Barnala on 28/03/2023 which is still pending with the juri ictional AO. It was submitted that similar fact pattern exist for the assessee’s appeal in ITA No. 855/Chd/2024 pertaining to assessment year 2021-22. It was accordingly submitted that both the subject matters may be remitted to the file of the AO with appropriate directions and the assessee shall attend to the proceedings and ensure in timely completion thereof.
Per contra, the Ld. Dr is heard who has relied on the intimation so passed by the CPC and it was submitted that basis the return filed by the Assessee, the CPC Bangalore has processed the return of income and determined the tax liability and it is for the assessee to demonstrate that it qualifies for exemption under section 10(23C)(iiiad) and it was further submitted that since there were substantial delay in filing the appeal before the Ld. Add. CIT, the appeal has been rightly dismissed by the Ld. Addl. CIT on account of delay in filing the appeal in absence of any reasonable cause shown by the assessee.
I have heard the rival contentions and purused the material available on record. As far as delay in filing the appeal, I find that the assessee has the sufficient cause for the delay in filing the appeal due to lack of professional diligence on part of its Counsel and on account of Covid pandemic and the affidavit of the assessee as well as the Counsel of the assessee has been placed on record and the contents of which remain unrebutted before me. In the result, the delay is hereby condoned. On merits, the assessee claims to be eligible for exemption under Section 10(23C)(iiiad) of the Act instead of Section 10(23C)(vi) as so stated wrongly in the return of income. It is a settled legal proposition that lawful claim of the assessee which the assessee is otherwise eligible cannot be denied to the assessee merely basis the wrong claim while filing the 4
return of income and it is incumbent on the part of the Assessing officer to assist and guide the assessee in making the rightful claim which the assessee is eligible for. Given that there is no finding on merits of the case and the assessee has already approached the JAO, I deem it appropriate that both these matters are set-aside to the file of the JAO to decide the same afresh as per law after providing reasonable opportunity to the assessee.
In the result, both the appeals of the Assessee are allowed for statistical purposes.
(Order pronounced in the open Court on 09/01/2025 ) िवᮓम ᳲसह यादव
(VIKRAM SINGH YADAV)
लेखा सद᭭य / ACCOUNTANT MEMBER
AG
Date: 09/01/2025
आदेश कᳱ ᮧितिलिप अᮕेिषत/ Copy of the order forwarded to :
अपीलाथᱮ/ The Appellant 2. ᮧ᭜यथᱮ/ The Respondent 3. आयकर आयुᲦ/ CIT 4. आयकर आयुᲦ (अपील)/ The CIT(A) 5. िवभागीय ᮧितिनिध, आयकर अपीलीय आिधकरण, च᭛डीगढ़/ DR, ITAT, CHANDIGARH 6. गाडᭅ फाईल/ Guard File
आदेशानुसार/ By order,
सहायक पंजीकार/