M/S KARNATAKA BADMINTON ASSOCIATION,BANGALORE vs. DDIT, BANGALORE

This appeal is filed by the assessee and it is directed against the order of CIT(A) – 14 Bengaluru dated 02.02.2016.

This appeal is filed by the assessee after a delay of 42 days and the assessee has moved an application for condonation of delay along with an affidavit in which it is submitted that the assessee was under Bonafide belief that the appeal of the assessee before CIT (A) was academic only because in the present year, the assessed income was nil and hence, even this finding of the AO that the assessee is hit by proviso to section 2 (15) is not required to be challenged because of nil assessed income and under this belief, he withdrawn the appeal before CIT (A) and did not file any appeal before the tribunal against the impugned order of CIT (A) asper which the appeal of the assessee was dismissed as withdrawn but later when the assessee consulted a counsel in respect of A. Y. 2013 – 14 where also, the assessee’s claim for exemption u/s 11 was rejected on that basis only that the assessee is hit by proviso to section 2 (15), the assessee was advised to file appeal before the tribunal for the present year also and after that, the present appeal was filed. In course of hearing, learned AR of the assessee submitted that under these facts, the delay should be condoned and the appeal should be admitted. Considering these facts and in the interest of justice, the delay is condoned and the appeal is admitted. 3. Regarding merit of the appeal, it was submitted by the learned AR of the assessee that the assessee had withdrawn the appeal before CIT (A) under wrong (B)/2016 Page 2 of 2 understanding that the appeal is academic and therefore, this withdrawal should be ignored and the matter may be restored to CIT (A) for a decision on merit. Learned DR of the revenue supported the order of CIT (A). She also submitted that once the assessee has withdrawn the appeal before CIT (A), now the appeal cannot be restored to CIT (A) for decision on merit. 4. We have considered the rival submission. We find force in the submission of the learned AR of the assessee that appeal was withdrawn by the assessee under wrong understanding that the appeal is academic because we find that although a finding is given in the assessment order that the assessee is not eligible for exemption u/s 11 because this is the allegation and decision of the AO that the assessee is hit by the proviso to section 2 (15), the ultimate assessed income is nil because there is no taxable income even without exemption u/s 11and therefore, one can have this impression that in the present year, the appeal is academic but since, the decision of AO about non eligibility of the assessee for exemption u/s 11 because of this allegation that the assessee is hit by proviso to section 2 (15) will operate against the assessee in subsequent year also, in fact the appeal in itself is not academic. Hence, we restore this matter to CIT (A) for a decision on merit after providing adequate opportunity of being heard to both sides. 5. In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed. Order pronounced in the open court on the date mentioned on the caption page.