Loading judgment…
Facts
The assessee's appeal before the ITAT was filed 659 days late. The assessee claimed the delay was due to the negligence of their tax consultant and the trustees' lack of awareness about tax proceedings. The Assessing Officer had added the entire gross receipts without allowing any expenditure deduction.
Held
The Tribunal condoned the delay subject to a cost of Rs. 5,000/- to be deposited in the Prime Minister's National Relief Fund. The impugned order of the CIT(A) was set aside, and the matter was restored to the Assessing Officer for a fresh assessment.
Key Issues
Condonation of delay in filing appeal; Whether de novo assessment is required.
Sections Cited
143(3)
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “A” BENCH, AHMEDABAD
Before: Shri Sanjay Garg & Annapurna Gupta
Year : 2017-18 Milan Seva Trust The ITO बनाम/ A-38, Gulab Park Rapna Ward-3(3)(2) v/s. Nagar Ahmedabad Oppal Madina Masjid Sarkhej Road, Juhapura Ahmedabad – 380 055 "थायी लेखा सं./PAN: AACTM 5150 H (अपीलाथ(/ Appellant) ()* यथ(/ Respondent) Assessee by : Shri Chetan Agarwal, AR Revenue by : Shri Rajenkumar M. Savavda, Sr.DR सुनवाई की तारीख/Date of Hearing : 02/02/2026 घोषणा की तारीख /Date of Pronouncement: 09/02/2026 आदेश/O R D E R Per Sanjay Garg, Judicial Member:
The present appeal has been preferred by the assessee against the order of the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi [hereinafter referred to as ‘CIT(A)’] dated 19/12/2023 for Assessment Year (AY) 2017-18. Milan Seva Trust vs. ITO Asst. Year : 2017-18 2 2. The assessee, in this appeal has agitated against the addition of Rs.40,50,670/- made by the Assessing Officer (AO) adding the entire gross receipts of the assessee without giving any deduction of expenditure.
The appeal is time-barred by 659 days. A separate application for condonation of delay in filing the appeal has been filed, wherein, it has been deposed that the Tax Consultant appointed by the assessee did not bother to look into the appellate proceedings before the Ld.CIT(A). He neither represented before the Ld. CIT(A) nor ever intimated about the passing of the final order of the Ld. CIT(A) on the appeal of the assessee. That no copy of the order was received by any trustees. The Ld. Counsel for the assessee has submitted that the assessee is a charitable organization which gets grants from the Government for medical aid to the poor and needy people. The Ld. Counsel for the assessee has submitted that the assessee has a fair case on merits as the AO has added the entire gross receipts without deduction of the expenditure. He has further submitted that the non-representation before the ld. CIT(A) was not intentional and further the delay in filing the present appeal has occurred due to circumstances which were beyond the control of the assessee as the trustees of the assessee were not well aware about the income-tax proceedings. The Ld. Counsel for the assessee has submitted that even there was no proper representation by the concerned Tax Consultant before the AO resulting into the aforesaid addition. The Ld. Counsel for the assessee requested that the assessee may be given an opportunity to present its case before the Ld. AO.
The Ld. DR, on the other hand, has relied upon the orders of the lower authorities. Milan Seva Trust vs. ITO Asst. Year : 2017-18
Considering the rival submissions and application of the assessee for condonation of delay, the delay in filing the present appeal is hereby condoned subject to deposit of a cost Rs.5,000/- in Prime Minister’s National Relief Fund. The impugned order of the Ld. CIT(A) is hereby set aside and the matter is restored to the file of the AO for de novo assessment on this issue. The assessee will furnish the proof of deposit of the cost amount before the AO.
In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes.