HANUMAN SINGH,KODESAR, JHUNJHUNU vs. CIT (APPEALS), NFAC

2 ADITYA MANAV SEVA SANSTHAN VS ITO (E), WARD- 1, JAIPUR 2. That without prejudice to Ground No. 1, the ld CIT(A) has erred in not deciding the issue of charging of tax at MMR by CPC on the net income of the appellant charitable institution which is registered u/s 12A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 without assigning any reason for the same.

That without prejudice to Ground No. 1, the ld CIT(A) has erred in not deciding the issue of not allowing credit of Rs.9,355/- by CPC being TDS deducted by bank on interest payment which income stands duly accounted for in the ITR 2.1 After hearing both the parties and perusing the materials available on record, the Bench found that the appeal filed by the assesse was dismissed by the ld. CIT(A) as the same was not filed within limitation period. Therefore, the same was dismissed by not condoning the delay. However, before me, the ld. AR of the assesse reiterated the same arguments as were raised by him before the first appellate authority and also relied upon the written submission. The Bench found that the case of the assessee is that the order passed by the AO u/s 143(3) of the Act dated 21-05-2019 was served upon the assessee on 22-05-2023. In this regard, he has relied upon his affidavit but the ld. AR has not filed any documentary evidence before any of the Revenue Authorities in support of his affidavit and could not substantiate his arguments in respect of said claim that the order passed on 21-05-2019 by the AO was served upon the assessee on 22-05-2023. However, on going through the CPC 2.0 portal, it was noticed that on 09-07-2020 the assessee has filed rectification application against order passed on 21-05-2019 u/s 3 ADITYA MANAV SEVA SANSTHAN VS ITO (E), WARD- 1, JAIPUR 143(1) of the Act which was rejected on 24-07-2020. Since the assessee had filed rectification application on 09-07-2020, therefore, the claim of the assessee that order passed on 21-05-2019 was served upon the assessee on 22-05-2023, cannot be relied upon. The assessee could not substantiate the said fact subsequently before the ld. CIT(A) and also before me. On one hand, the assessee has taken specific step that impugned order dated 21-05-2019 u/s143 (1) of the Act was served upon him on 22-05-2023 but on the other hand, the assessee himself has filed rectification against the said order on 09-07-2020 which shows that the assessee had incorrect claim / defence before the Revenue Authorities. Thus the ld.CIT(A) has rightly rejected the application filed by the assessee for seeking condonation of delay. The Bench also takes into consideration the case laws relied upon by the ld. CIT(A) on the issue of condonation of delay. (i) Perumon Bhagvathy Devaswom, Perinadu Village vs Bhargavi Amma (Dead) by Lrs. (2008) 8 SCC 321 (ii) Balwant Singh (Dead) vs Jagdish Singh (2010) 8 SCC 685. (iii) Shiv Dass vs Union of India (UOI) and Ors, AIR 2007 SC 1330 (iv) Ajay Dabra vs Pyare Ram & Ors., Arising out of SLP © No. 15793 of 2019 (SC) (v) State of Uttar Pradesh & Ors M/s, Satish Chand Shivharre and Brothers SLP (Civil) No. 4301 of 2022 dated 04th April, 2022 (Alld. H.C.)