Loading judgment…
No AI summary yet for this case.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, AGRA BENCH ‘SMC’ AGRA
Before: SHRI SUNIL KUMAR SINGH & SHRI BRAJESH KUMAR SINGH
Date of Hearing 03.04.2025 Date of Pronouncement 03.04.2025 ORDER PER BRAJESH KUMAR SINGH, AM,
This is a bunch of three appeals filed by the assessee, pertaining to assessment years 2016-17, 2017-18 and 2018-19, respectively. All the three appeals filed by the assessee, which is running a school have identical and similar issues. Therefore, all these three appeals were heard together and are being disposed of by this common order for the sake of convenience and brevity.
2. At the outset, the Ld. AR submitted that the appeals for AY 2016-17 and 2018-19 were dismissed by the Ld. CIT(A) on account of delay in filing of the appeal before the Ld. CIT(A). It was further submitted that for AY 2017-18, the delay of 15 days in filing the appeal was condoned by the ld. CIT(A) but on merits, it was dismissed. The details of the said appeals and the status of condonation by the ld. CIT(A) is reproduced as under:-
Sl A.Y. Date of Date of Due date of Appeal filed Delay Remarks No Intimation receipt of filing of before in order u/s order by appeal CIT(A) days 143(1) of the assessee before the Act Ld. CIT(A) 1 2016-17 09.11.2017 09.11.2017 09.12.2017 12.02.2020 795 Not condoned 2 2017-18 30.03.2019 18.04.2019 13.05.2019 13.05.2019 15 Condoned 3 2018-19 30.09.2019 11.10.2019 10.11.2019 02.02.2020 84 Not condoned 2.1. It was submitted by the assessee before the ld. CIT(A) that the delay in filing of the appeal was due to the fact that the assessee could not access e-mail account due to the breakdown of its computer and non- availability of the technical expert in small town like Konch. The reasons submitted before the ld. CI(A) are as under:-
"I could not access my mail account due to break down of my computer and non-availability of technical expert in small town like Konch. Due to delay in receipt of intimation order. When my CA was checking the pending proceeding related to year A/Y 19- 20 in this regard he notice the proceedings after which he filed form 35. I humbly request you to condone the delay made and admit my appeal and do not treat the appeal as invalid."
2.2. Further, it was submitted by the ld. AR that there was also a delay in filing the appeal before the Tribunal. The details of which are reproduced as under:-
Sl A.Y. Date of Date of Due date of Appeal filed Delay No order of receipt of filing of before ITAT in CIT(A) order of appeal days CIT(A) by before the assessee Tribunal 1 2016-17 14.12.2022 14.12.2022 14.02.2023 05.05.2023 50 14.02.2023 2 2017-18 14.12.2022 14.12.2022 05.05.2023 50 14.02.2023 3 2018-19 14.12.2022 14.12.2022 05.05.2023 50 2.3. In this regard, the ld. AR filed a condonation petition and a supporting medical certificate, which is reproduced as under:-
2.4. The ld. DR objected to the delay in filing of the appeal before us and also submitted that the delay in filing the appeal before the Ld. CIT(A) was also not justified and the same should also not be condoned.
2.5. We have heard both the parties and perused the materials available on record. As per Form-36 of the appeal memo, the order dated 14.12.2022 of the ld. CIT(A) for all the above assessment years was received by the assessee on 14.12.2022 and therefore the due date for filing of the appeal would have expired on 14.02.2023, whereas all the above three appeals were filed on 05.05.2023 after a delay of approximately 50 days. We have perused the condonation petition and on its perusal, it is seen that Shri Joseph Xavier Arakkal, the manager of the assessee was not well from 05.02.2023 to 05.05.2023 and was advised bedrest during the said period. Considering the above facts, the delay in filing the appeals before us for the above three assessment years are hereby condoned.
2.6. Further, the delay in filing of the appeal before the ld. CIT(A) has been carefully considered. Even though, there are certain gaps in the condonation application filed by the assessee but it is also a fact that the assessee does not gain any advantage by filing the respective appeals beyond the due date specially when the assessee was running the school since 1998. Therefore, taking a practical view of the ground reality of the location of the school in a remote set-up, we condone the delay in the filing of the appeal by the assessee before the ld. CIT(A) for AYs 2016-17 and 2018-19.
Brief facts of the case: The assessee Ebenezer Shiksha Prasar Samiti is an educational institution and is a registered Co-operative Society. The assessee filed its original return of income for the respective assessment years, which was processed u/s 143(1) of the Act. While processing the return of income u/s 143(1) of the Act, the CPC did not allow the exemption claimed u/s 10(23C)(iiiad) of the Act in the status of AOP/BOI.
In this regard, in one of the ground of appeal before the Ld. CIT(A), it was submitted that the CPC grossly erred by changing the status of the assessee, which is out of domain of section 143(1) of the Act by applying rate of tax of partnership firm and not of AOP or society. Further, the statement of facts filed by the assessee for 2016-17 before the Ld. CIT(A), is reproduced as under:-
“1. The appellant is an educational institution solely for education purposes and not for purposes of profit and existing since year 1998.
During the year the appellant filed its original return of income having aggregate annual receipt of Rs. 4079820/- and gross income amounting to Rs. 172240.
3. The appellant is eligible for exemption under section 10(23C) (iliad) of Rs.172240.
4. However, due to some technical mistakes while filing the form, the intimation order under section 143(1) of Income Tax Act do not granted the exemption admissible.
Further, the assessee has filed identical grounds of appeal before the Tribunal for all the above assessment years which is reproduced as under:-
1) That the order passed by CIT(A) NFAC is against the principle natural justice, Unlawful and illegal.
2) That the CIT(A) NAC grossly erred by not considering the appeal on merit, which involved only erroneous adjustment. 3) That the CIT(A) NFAC grossly erred by not approaching the appeal judiciously, he without assigning any reason for rejection of condonation application, dismissed appeal without considering on merit.
We have heard both the parties and perused the materials available on record. As noted above, the ld. CIT(A) had dismissed the appeal for AY 2016-17 and 2018-19 by not condoning the delay and without discussion on merits. In view of the fact that we have condoned the delay in filing of the appeal before us for these two assessment years as well as before the ld. CIT(A), we hereby set-aside the order of the Ld. CIT(A) and restore the matter to his file to decide the issue afresh on merits. As regards for AY 2017-18, even though the ld. CIT(A) decided the matter on merits by holding that there was no error on part of the CPC as admittedly the assessee did not claim any deduction u/s 10(23C)(vi) of the Act and the assessee had itself filed its return of income in Form No.ITR-7 for AY 2017-
However, it is seen that the ld. CIT(A) did not adjudicate on one of the ground submitted by the assessee that it erroneously filed ITR in Form-7 and it should have been allowed to file expenditure. Therefore, in the interest of justice, we set-aside the order of the ld. CIT(A) for AY 2017-18 and restore the matter to his file for deciding the appeal afresh.
Needless to mention here that the ld. CIT(A) will grant reasonable opportunity of being heard in respect of all the above three appeals during the fresh adjudication and the assessee is also directed to appear before the ld. CIT(A).
In the result, all the three appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes.
Order pronounced in the open court on 3rd April, 2025.