PARMARTH TRUST,SURAT vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (EXEMPTION), AHMEDABAD
Facts
The assessee's appeal was filed beyond the limitation period. The delay was attributed to the assessee's tax consultant being preoccupied, leading to a lack of adequate representation and the rejection of the assessee's application by the Ld. CIT(E). The assessee became aware of the rejection with a significant delay, causing the delay in filing the present appeal.
Held
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal. While acknowledging the non-compliance with notices issued by the Ld. CIT(E) and the inadequate representation, the Tribunal restored the matter to the file of the Ld. CIT(E) in the interest of justice.
Key Issues
Condonation of delay in filing the appeal and restoration of the case to the Ld. CIT(E).
Sections Cited
12A
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, SURAT BENCH, SURAT
Before: SHRI SIDDHARTHA NAUTIYAL & SHRI BIJAYANANDA PRUSETH
IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL SURAT BENCH, SURAT BEFORE SHRI SIDDHARTHA NAUTIYAL, JUDICIAL MEMBER & SHRI BIJAYANANDA PRUSETH, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER I.T.A. No. 636/SRT/2024 (Assessment Year: N.A.) Parmarth Trust, Vs. Commissioner of Income Tax 43, Royal Park Society, Sumul (Exemption), Dairy Road, Surat-395008 Ahmedabad [PAN No.AAFTP0343Q] (Appellant) .. (Respondent)
Shri Rohit K. Taja, C.A. Appellant by : Respondent by: Shri Ravi Kant Gupta, CIT DR
Date of Hearing 25.03.2025 27.03.2025 Date of Pronouncement
O R D E R PER SIDDHARTHA NAUTIYAL - JUDICIAL MEMBER:
This appeal has been filed by the Assessee against the order passed by the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax(Exemption), (in short “Ld. CIT(E)”), Ahmedabad vide order dated 23.08.2023.
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
ITA No.636/Srt/2024 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
ITA No.636/Srt/2024 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
Sd/- Sd/- (BIJAYANANDA PRUSETH) (SIDDHARTHA NAUTIYAL) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER Ahmedabad; Dated 27/03/2025 TANMAY, Sr. PS TRUE COPY आदेश की �ितिलिप अ�ेिषत/Copy of the Order forwarded to : 1. अपीलाथ� / The Appellant 2. ��थ� / The Respondent. 3. संबंिधत आयकर आयु� / Concerned CIT 4. आयकर आयु�(अपील) / The CIT(A)- िवभागीय �ितिनिध, आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, सूरत / DR, ITAT, Surat 5. 6. गाड� फाईल / Guard file. आदेशानुसार/ BY ORDER,
उप/सहायक पंजीकार (Dy./Asstt.Registrar) आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, सूरत/ ITAT, Surat
Date of dictation 27.03.2025 2. Date on which the typed draft is placed before the Dictating Member 27.03.2025 3. Other Member………………… 4. Date on which the approved draft comes to the Sr.P.S./P.S 27.03.2025 5. Date on which the fair order is placed before the Dictating Member for pronouncement .03.2025 6. Date on which the fair order comes back to the Sr.P.S./P.S .03.2025 7. Date on which the file goes to the Bench Clerk .03.2025 8. Date on which the file goes to the Head Clerk…………………………………... 9. The date on which the file goes to the Assistant Registrar for signature on the order…………………….. 10. Date of Dispatch of the Order……………………………………
