Loading judgment…
Facts
The assessee, an Educational Trust, claimed exemption under section 10(23C)(iiiad) for the assessment year 2018-19, which was rejected by the CPC. The assessee appealed to the NFAC, but the NFAC decided the appeal ex-parte, stating the assessee did not reply to a notice. The assessee contended that they had filed responses and sought an adjournment, which was overlooked by the NFAC.
Held
The Tribunal held that the NFAC overlooked the adjournment letter and written submissions filed by the assessee, rendering the ex-parte order against the principles of natural justice. The Tribunal also noted that the due date for filing the return and audit report for AY 2018-19 was extended by the CBDT.
Key Issues
Whether the NFAC was justified in passing an ex-parte order without considering the assessee's submissions and adjournment requests. Whether the audit report was filed within the extended due date.
Sections Cited
10(23C)(iiiad), 12A, 143(1), 250, 119
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “C’’ BENCH: BANGALORE
Before: SHRI CHANDRA POOJARI & SHRI SOUNDARARAJAN K.
PER SOUNDARARAJAN K., JUDICIAL MEMBER:
This appeal by assessee is directed against order of NFAC passed u/s 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short “The Act”) for the assessment year 2018-19 dated 21.2.2024.
Brief facts of the case are that the assessee is an Educational Trust and registered under section 12A of the provisions of the Act and claimed an exemption u/s 10(23C)(iiiad) of the Act, which was rejected by the CPC in the intimation issued u/s 143(1) of the Act dated 21.5.2019 inspite of the reply filed by the assessee. Immedietly the assessee filed a rectification application which was also rejected on 28.08.2019.
Sri Sai Educational Trust, Chintamani Page 2 of 3 2.1 Challenging the said intimation, the assessee filed an appeal before the NFAC and contended that the rejection of the exemption is not in accordance with the provisions of the Act and the CPC had not considered the reply filed by the assessee before rejecting the claim of exemption in the intimation sent by the CPC. The NFAC decided the appeal ex-parte on the ground that the assessee had not replied to the notice dated 31.1.2024 and therefore dismissed the appeal ex-parte. The said ex-parte order is now challenged by the assessee before this Tribunal.
The ld. A.R. at the time of hearing submitted a paper book in which he has enclosed the acknowledgements for having filed the response to the notices issued u/s 250 of the Act on 25.9.2020 and 11.1.2021 alongwith attachments. The ld. A.R. also filed a copy of the e-mail confirmation for having sent the adjournment letter on 7.2.2024 and also produced the acknowledgement for having filed the written submissions and other documents again before NFAC on 16.2.2024. The ld. A.R. further submitted that there is an order passed u/s 119 of the Act by the CBDT in which the due date for filing the return along with audit report was extended from 15.10.2018 to 31.10.2018 and contended that the audit report in Form 10B was filed on 29.10.2018 within the extended period and therefore, the disallowance made by the ld. AO is not in order.
The Ld. Standing Counsel relied on the orders of the lower authorities.
We have heard the rival submissions and perused the materials available on record. Before going into the merits of the case, it is an admitted fact that the assessee had filed evidences to show that they have sent response to notices on 25.09.2020 and 11.01.2024 and also the e-mail confirmation about the adjournment sought on 07.02.2024. Thereafter the assessee again uploaded the written submissions and other documents on 16.02.2024. But unfortunately, the NFAC had failed to look into the adjournment