Loading judgment…
Facts
The assessee, a trust registered under Section 12AA, filed a nil income return for AY 2016-17. The AO, after the assessee failed to appear for scrutiny proceedings, taxed the entire receipt as 'income from other sources' denying benefits of Sections 11, 12, and 13. The ld. CIT(A) dismissed the assessee's appeal ex-parte.
Held
The ITAT condoned the 79-day delay in filing the appeal, finding that notices for assessment and appeal proceedings were sent to an incorrect email address, constituting a reasonable cause. The ITAT observed that the ld. CIT(A) had not dealt with the merits of the case, violating Section 250(6) of the Act, and therefore restored the matter to the ld. CIT(A) for fresh adjudication after providing a proper opportunity of being heard to the assessee.
Key Issues
Whether there was a reasonable cause for the delay in filing the appeal due to incorrect email address for notices, and whether the CIT(A)'s ex-parte order dismissing the appeal without considering merits was valid.
Sections Cited
12AA, 143(2), 142(1), 11, 12, 13, 250(6)
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, COCHIN BENCH, COCHIN
Before: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri Prakash Chand Yadav
Asst.Year 2016-2017 St.Marys Jacobite Syrian Church The Income Tax Officer Nadama, Tripunithura Exemption Ward v. Ernakulam – 682 301 Kochi. PAN : AADTS3299J. (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant by : Smt.Parvathy Ammal, CA Respondent by :Smt.Leena Lal, Sr.AR Date of Pronouncement : 19.02.2025 Date of Hearing : 21.01.2025. O R D E R
Per Prakash Chand Yadav, JM :
The present appeal filed by the assessee is arising from the order of the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) dated 26th October, 2023 and it relates to assessment year 2016- 2017, having DIN & Order No.ITBA/NFAC/S/250/2023- 24/1057425641(1).
The brief facts of the case are that the assessee is a trust having registration u/s.12AA of the Income-tax Act, filed its return of income on 28thJuly, 2016 declaring `Nil’ income. The case of the assessee was selected for scrutiny and accordingly the statutory notices u/s.143(2) and 142(1) were issued to the assessee. However, no one appeared from the side of the assessee. Therefore, the Assessing Officer taxed the entire . St.Marys Jacobite Syrian Church. receipt as income from other sources applying the rate of tax applicable to the association of persons, meaning thereby the A.O. has not allowed any benefit of secs. 11, 12 and 13 of the Act to the assessee.
Aggrieved with the order of the A.O., the assessee filed appeal before the learned CIT(A). However, the learned the ld.CIT(A) also none appeared from the side of the assessee, and hence, the CIT(A) dismissed the appeal of the assessee ex parte without dealing with the merits of the case.
Aggrieved with the order of the ld.CIT(A), the assessee preferred the present appeal. There is a delay of 79 days in the present appeal. Explaining the reasons for delay, the learned Counsel for the assessee has drawn the attention of the bench towards an affidavit filed by the assessee in support of application for condonation of delay. The main contention of the assessee is that the notices from the assessment as well as the appeal proceedings before the ld.CIT(A) were issued in a wrong email address, and hence, no one appeared before the ld.CIT(A). The same reasons for the delay of 79 days has been made by the assessee before us.
The learned Departmental Representative strongly opposed the petition for condonation of delay filed by the assessee.
After considering the rival submissions and perusing the material available on record, we observe that the correct email id of the assessee was trustees@nadamelchurch.org. However, . St.Marys Jacobite Syrian Church. the notices were issued in an incorrect address, i.e.,nadamelchurchmail@gmail.com. Similarly, the order of the ld.CIT(A) has also been sent in the wrong email id. Therefore, there was a reasonable cause for not filing appeal on time. Hence, we condone the ordinate delay of 79 days happened and proceeded to decide the matter.
After perusing the order of the ld.CIT(A) we observe that except one notice of hearing or other the notices were pertained to Covid period. Further, we have also observed that the notices of hearing were sent to wrong email id and that is why the assessee could not appear before the ld.CIT(A). Further, the ld.CIT(A) has not at all dealt with the merits of the case, and hence, it is a clear cut violation of provisions of section 250(6) of the Act. Therefore, in the interest of justice, we restore this matter back to the file of the ld.CIT(A) for deciding afresh in accordance with law. Needless to say, the ld.CIT(A) would grant sufficient opportunity of being heard to the assessee before passing any order.
In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced on this 19th day of February, 2025.