PARMARTH TRUST,SURAT vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (EXEMPTION), AHMEDABAD

In this case, we observe that the present appeal is time barred by 221 days. Before us, the Counsel for the assessee filed application for condonation of delay and submitted that the President of the applicant trust was not well-versed with income tax proceedings and accordingly, he engaged a tax consultant for filing application for registration under Section 12A of the Act. Admittedly, certain details were called for by the Ld. CIT(E), however, since the consultant of the assessee / applicant trust Parmarth Trust vs. CIT(E) Asst.Year –N.A. - 2– was preoccupied with return filing activities and tax audit work, he could not file timely response to notices issued by Ld. CIT(E). Therefore, it was for this reason that the assessee / applicant trust could not make adequate representation and application of the assessee / applicant trust was rejected. Further, it was stated that it was only with a substantial delay that the assessee / applicant trust came to know about the rejection of his application by Ld. CIT(E), for the impugned assessment year, that caused an inadvertent delay in filing of the present appeal.

On going through the Affidavit filed by the assessee / applicant trust, the delay in filing of the present appeal is hereby condoned.

Further, the Counsel for the assessee submitted that in the interest of justice, the matter may be restored to the file of Ld. CIT(E), since due to the mistake of the consultant appointed by the assessee / applicant trust, the assessee / applicant trust could not make adequate representation before Ld. CIT(E).

On going through the facts of the instant case, we observe that admittedly, it was on account of the inadvertence of the consultant of the assessee / applicant trust that the application of the assessee was rejected by Ld. CIT(E), in absence of details having been furnished. We observe that the Counsel for the assessee has not given any cogent reason for non- appearance and has shifted the entire onus on the tax consultant appointed by him. In our view, evidently there has been non-compliance to the notices issued by Ld. CIT(E). However, in the interest of justice the matter Parmarth Trust vs. CIT(E) Asst.Year –N.A. - 3– is hereby restored to the file of Ld. CIT(E) with a cost of Rs. 10,000/- to be deposited with the Prime Minister Relief Fund.

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced under proviso to Rule 34 of ITAT Rules, 1963 on 27/03/2025