Loading judgment…
Facts
The assessee, Madhya Pradesh Bhoj Open University, is in appeal against the CIT(A)'s order dismissing its first appeal due to a delay of 239 days without condonation. The assessee failed to file its return and was non-compliant with notices, leading to an ex-parte assessment order.
Held
The Tribunal found that while no separate application for condonation of delay was filed in a detailed manner, some averments were made in Form No.35. Considering the assessee is a university and government funds are involved, the Tribunal set aside the impugned order and remanded the case back to the CIT(A).
Key Issues
Whether the CIT(A) was justified in dismissing the appeal solely on the ground of delay without considering the facts and circumstances and providing an opportunity for condonation, especially when the assessee is a university.
Sections Cited
253, 147, 144, 144B, 148, 142(1), 246A, 270A
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, INDORE BENCH, INDORE
Before: B.M. BIYANI & SHRI PARESH M JOSHI
the order bearing Number ITBA/NFAC/S/250/2024- 25/1069389336(1) dated 04.10.2024 passed by the Ld. CIT(A) u/s 250 of the Act which is hereinafter referred to as the “Impugned order”. The relevant Assessment Year is 2017-18
Madhya Pradesh Bhoj Open University - A.Y.2017-18 and the corresponding previous year period is from 01.04.2016 to 31.03.2017.
FACTUAL MATRIX 2.1 That as and by way of an assessment order made u/s 147 r.w.s. 144/144B of the Act, the assessee’s total assessed income exigible to tax was computed at Rs.90,92,44,281/-. The assessee had failed to file its return of income for the year under consideration and thus receipts were unaccounted and escaped from taxation. Even Return of Income was not filed in response to notice u/s 148 of the Act. Notice(s) u/s 142(1) of the Act dated 22.06.2021, 16.11.2021, and 09.12.2021 were too remained non compliant by the assessee. That the aforesaid assessment order bears No.ITBA/AST/S/147/2021-22/ 1042130806(1) and that same is dated 30.03.2022 which is hereinafter referred to as “impugned assessment order”. This is an order on quantum assessment.
2.2 That the assessee being aggrieved by the aforesaid “impugned assessment order” prefers first appeal u/s 246A of the Act before Ld. CIT(A) who by the “impugned order” has dismissed the appeal of the assessee on grounds stated therein.
Madhya Pradesh Bhoj Open University - A.Y.2017-18 The core ground and reasons for dismissal of first appeal under the Act was non condonation of delay of 239 days in preferring the first appeal under the Act as no sufficient cause shown.
2.3 That the assessee being aggrieved by the “impugned order” has preferred the instant second appeal before this Tribunal and has raised following grounds of appeal in Form No.36 against the “impugned order” which are as under:-
“1. The Ld. AO was not justified in passing the order, which is bad-1 in-law, void ab initio, barred by limitation, illegal, contrary to the facts and circumstances of the case, liable to be annulled.
2. The Ld. CIT(A) was not justified in confirming the order, which is bad-in-law, void ab initio, barred by limitation, illegal, contrary to the facts and circumstances of the case, liable to be annulled.
3. The Id CIT(A) was not justified in ex-parte dismissing the 3 appeal, that a fair and meaningful opportunity was not available to the appellant to the present case.
4. The Ld. AO has assessed the assessee's income at declared income of Rs. 1,22,01,967/- however while computing tax, Income of the Assessee has been wrongly considered as Rs. 2,55,03,790/- 5. The ld. CIT(A) was not justified in confirming the addition of Rs. 1,33,01,820/- merely by rejecting the condonation application without considering the facts and circumstances of case.
The appellant carves leave to add, amend or modify any of the grounds of appeal”.
Record of Hearing 3.1 The hearing in the matter took place before this Tribunal on 03.07.2025 when the Ld. AR for and on behalf of the assessee
Madhya Pradesh Bhoj Open University - A.Y.2017-18 appeared before us and interalia contended that the “impugned assessment order” is illegal, not proper and is in the violation of the principles of natural justice. It was accordingly prayed that the same should be set aside by this Tribunal. The Ld. AR with regard to the core issue of delay in preferring first appeal u/s 246A of the Act fairly submitted that there was indeed a delay of 239 days in preferring the first appeal and that no application for condonation of delay separately and independently was preferred by the assessee before the Ld. CIT(A). That in response to the deficiency letters dated 20.09.2024 and 26.09.2024 the assessee had written a letter dated 26.09.2024 to the Ld. CIT(A) wherein it was pointed out that no separate application for condonation of delay was preferred but in relevant column of Form No.35 column 14 & 15 it was stated that at the material time and place there was no competent officer with financial back ground in the assessee university from November 2021 till July 2022 and that it is only thereafter one Finance Manager on deputation came that too with additional charge order. This was the root cause of delay. The assessee university came to know about “impugned assessment order” only when department
Madhya Pradesh Bhoj Open University - A.Y.2017-18 followed for demand. It was also stated that the “impugned assessment order” is dated 30.03.2022 and date of service is shown as 09.12.2022 in Form No.35. They are however now willing to file a detailed application for the condonation of delay if an opportunity is given to them as last chance as the assessee is a university as and by way of an Act of State Legislature and a liberal approach may be taken. Per contra Ld. DR for and on behalf of the Revenue stated that since the assessee is a university department of revenue has no objection if an opportunity is provided to them as and by way of last chance as government funds are involved in the university too.
Observations,findings & conclusions.
4.1 We now have to decide the legality, validity and the proprietary of the “Impugned Order” basis records of the case and rival contentions canvassed before us.
4.2 We have carefully perused the records of the case.
4.3 We basis records of the case and after hearing and upon examining the contentions are of the considered opinion that “impugned order” has simply dismissed the appeal on ground of delay of 239 days as sufficient cause is not shown. While it is Page 5 of 8
Madhya Pradesh Bhoj Open University - A.Y.2017-18 true that no separate application for condonation of delay was preferred in a detailed manner with all material and better particulars nevertheless in column No. 14 & 15 of Form.35 few averments on delay was indeed made which we observe and note. However we are of the considered opinion that assessee university in these facts and circumstances as prayed for should be given a last and a final opportunity to make an independent and a separate application seeking condonation of delay by furnishing necessary and better particulars as to what really caused the delay of 239 days in preferring the first appeal.
4.4 In view of above, we set aside the “impugned order” and remand the case back to the file of Ld. CIT(A) who shall first consider a detailed application of the assessee university on condonation of delay on merits and if he is satisfied then shall proceed to pass a speaking order on merits of the case. The assessee is directed to present a fresh application on condonation of delay with all material and better particulars so that Ld. CIT(A) is well assisted.
Madhya Pradesh Bhoj Open University - A.Y.2017-18
Order 5.1 In view of aforesaid the “impugned order” is set aside as and by way of remand to Ld. CITA) on denovo basis with directions as aforesaid.
5.2 In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purpose.
ITA No.926/Ind/2024 (Penalty u/s 270A)
Since facts and circumstances are almost identical and similar this appeal is too disposed off by this common order.
Finally in the result both the appeals are allowed for statistical purpose.
Order pronounced in open court on 16.07.2025.