SARASWATI VIDYA MANDIR INTER COLLEGE,RAEBARELI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, RAEBARELI

2017-18 against impugned appellate order dated 05/03/2025 (DIN & Order No. ITBA/APL/S/250/2024- 25/1074067170(1) of Addl./Joint Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) [“ADDL/JCIT(A)” for short]. Grounds of appeal are as under:

“(1) Thie Addl. /JCIT (A), Kochhi failed to appreciate that there was a Reasonable Cause for not making compliance of the Notices issued during Appellate Proceeding as Assessee's Institution situated at Remote Area of Unchahar, District - Raebareli and does not have proper computerized system and Internet facility, therefore, Assessee Society was not aware of Appellate

Proceeding. Further the Local Advocate Amrish Agarwal also not informed about appellate proceeding.

(2) The Ld. Lower Authorities did not appreciate that the Assessee Institution was under the bonafide belief that its Income is exempt and is not required to file ITR as advised by Local Advocate Mr. Amirsh Agarwal. Thus, there was a Reasonable Cause for not filing the ITR for A. Y. - 2017-18. Though, the Assessee's Institution prepared Audited Receipt and Payment Account and Income and Expenditure Account where there is a loss of Rs.10,54,550/- during the year.

(3) The Ld. First Appellate Authority did not appreciate that Assessee College is solely an Educational Institution duly affiliated with U. P. Board and providing education from Nursery to Class-XII to approx. 1120 students residing at Interior Villages of Unchahar at very concessional rate. Thus, the upholding the Income at Rs.10,69,140/- against the loss of Rs.10,54,550/- is contrary to the facts of the case.

(4) That Assessee's Institution is having proper books of accounts, Bills and Vouchers and majority of expenses were paid through cheque. Further, receiving from students under the different heads of Student Fees were duly deposited in Bank on day to day basis. All these details are verifiable from the Bank Statement, hence estimating the Income at Rs.10,69,140/- as per provisions of Section 44AD of Income Tax Act against the Loss of Rs.10,54,550/- is incorrect as per Law.

(4) The addition upheld is highly excessive, contrary to the facts, law and principle of natural justice and without providing sufficient time and opportunity to have its say on the reasons relied upon.”

(B) This appeal has been filed by the assessee, beyond time limit prescribed under section 253(3) of IT Act. The assessee has submitted application for condonation of delay in filing of the appeal; pleading that the delay was unintentional and beyond the control of the assessee and has requested to admit the appeal for hearing. The learned Sr. Departmental Representative for Revenue did not express any objection to assessee’s application for condonation of delay in filing of the appeal. In view of the foregoing, and in specific facts and circumstances of the present appeal before us, the delay in filing of this appeal is condoned; and the appeal is admitted for hearing.

(C) The facts of the case, in brief, are that the assessee is AOP (Association of Persons). The Assessing Officer completed the assessment and passed order under section 144 of the Act and determined the total income of the assessee at Rs.10,69,140/- in the status of AOP. Aggrieved, the assessee filed appeal before the learned CIT(A) who also dismissed the appeal of the assessee for non prosecution.

(D) Aggrieved further, the assessee has filed the present appeal in Income Tax Appellate Tribunal against the aforesaid impugned appellate order of learned CIT(A). In the course of appellate proceedings in ITAT learned A.R. for the assessee submitted that the Assessing Officer as well as learned CIT(A) have passed order without affording sufficient time and opportunity to the assessee. In view of the foregoing, learned AR for the assessee submitted, the impugned order of learned CIT(A) should be set aside and the issue in dispute should be restored to the file of the Assessing Officer with the direction to pass fresh assessment order in accordance with law after providing reasonable opportunity to the assessee. The learned Sr. D.R. for the Revenue expressed no objection and left the matter to the discretion of the Bench.

(E) Both sides have been heard. Materials on record have been perused. In view of the submissions made by the Learned A. R. for the assessee, and there being no objection from learned Sr. D.R., we set aside the impugned appellate order dated 05/03/2025 and restore the matter back to the file of the Assessing Officer with the direction to pass de novo assessment order in accordance with law after providing reasonable opportunity to the assessee.

(F) In the result, the appeal of the assessee stands partly allowed for statistical purposes.

(Order pronounced in the open court on 14/10/2025)