Loading judgment…
Facts
The assessee, a charitable trust registered u/s 12A with objects of medical relief, had its assessment completed u/s 143(3). The AO denied exemption u/s 11 for expenses on doctors' travel and accommodation for a Diabetes Convention, considering it not for medical relief, and brought Rs. 17,51,427 to tax. The CIT(A) subsequently dismissed the assessee's appeal for non-prosecution.
Held
The ITAT condoned a 169-day delay in filing the appeal, finding reasonable cause due to the Managing Trustee's wife's depression leading to missed communication. The ITAT noted the CIT(A) passed an ex-parte order for non-prosecution and, satisfied with the reasons provided by the assessee, remanded the matter back to the CIT(A) for fresh disposal after providing a reasonable opportunity of hearing.
Key Issues
1. Whether the delay in filing the appeal before the Tribunal should be condoned. 2. Whether the CIT(A)'s ex-parte order dismissing the appeal for non-prosecution should be set aside and the matter remanded for fresh disposal.
Sections Cited
12A, 143(3), 11
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, COCHIN BENCH
Before: SHRI GEORGE GEORGE K., VP & SHRI INTURI RAMA RAO, AM
O R D E R Per: Inturi Rama Rao, AM This appeal filed by the assessee is directed against the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-1, Chandigarh [CIT(A)], dated 01.03.2024 for Assessment Year (AY) 2016-17.
Brief facts of the case are that the appellant is a charitable trust registered under the Trust Act. The appellant trust is formed with the objects of rendering medical relief to the public. The appellant trust is also registered u/s. 12A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (the Act). The return of income for AY 2016-17 was filed on P. Kessvadev Trust 08.10.2016 disclosing Nil income. Against the said return of income, the assessment was completed by the Income Tax Officer (Exemption), Thiruvananthapuram (hereinafter called "the AO") vide order dated 22.12.2018 passed u/s. 143(3) of the Act at a total income of Rs. 21,88,668/-. While doing so, the AO had denied exemption u/s. 11 of the Act in respect of expenditure incurred on travel and accommodation of the doctors who attended the meeting relating to Diabetes Convention at Jyodidev Research Centre. The AO was of the opinion that this expenditure cannot said to be incurred on medical relief. Accordingly denied exemption and brought to tax the net of the income over expenditure of Rs. 17,51,427/-.
Being aggrieved, an appeal was filed before the CIT(A) challenging the findings of the AO that the activity of the appellant is not charitable in nature. The learned CIT(A) had dismissed the appeal for non prosecution on merits.
At the outset, we find that there is a delay of 169 days in filing the present appeal. The appellant filed a petition along with an affidavit seeking condonation of delay in filing the appeal, wherein it is stated that wife of the Managing Trustee was looking after the affairs of the trust including correspondence with Income Tax Department. Owing to certain family related issues she was undergoing stress resulting into depression. Consequently the emails from the Income Tax Department were missed. It is submitted that P. Kessvadev Trust the delay had occurred on account of factors beyond the control of the appellant. Therefore it is prayed that the delay in filing the appeal may be condoned and the appeal may be admitted for adjudication. On a perusal of the averments made in the condonation petition, it is evident that the appellant is prevented by reasonable cause from filing the appeal. Therefore, we condone the delay and admit the appeal for adjudication.
The learned counsel for the assessee submits that the appellant could not put in appearance before the CIT(A) because of the wife of the Managing Trustee, Smt. Sunitha Jothydev, who was looking after the affairs of the appellant trust was undergoing stress following depression and consequently the emails received from the CIT(A) could not be responded to. Therefore, it is prayed that the exparte order passed by the CIT(A) may be set aside.
On the other hand, the ld. Sr. DR had no serious objection for remand of the matter to the CIT(A).
We have heard rival contentions and perused the material available on record. We find that the CIT(A) had passed exparte order for non persecution. We are satisfied with the reasons given for non prosecution before the CIT(A). Therefore, we are of the considered opinion that in the interest of justice the matter may be remanded back to the file of CIT(A) for fresh disposal in accordance with law after affording reasonable opportunity of hearing to the appellant.
Order pronounced in the open court on 13th May, 2025.