THE DEAN FOUNDATION,KILPAUK vs. CIT(EXEMPTIONS), CHENNAI

These two apeal s are filed against the order bearing DIN & Order No.ITBA/NFAC/S/250/2024 - 25/10651 60845(1) dated 27 .05.2024 and DIN & Order No.ITBA/ EXM /S/ EXM1/2020 - 21 / 10310580(1) dated 26.02.2021 of the Learned Comisioner of Income Tax [herein after & 1913 /Chny/2 024 : - 2 - :

—CIT(A), National Faceless Appeal and CIT(Exemption ) Chenai respectively for the asesment years 20 20 - 21. As the twin apeals pertains to the same asese for same asesing year, they are disposed of by this comon order. z∑û∏ y≤�π æ� ./ ������� ��� /Assessment Years: 2020-21 2.0 At the outset the Ld. C ouncil for the asese informed that the Ld. First Apelate Authority vide his order dated 27.05.2024 supra has ex - parte confi rmed the action of the Ld. AO in imposing a penalty of Rs. 31,30,747/ - u/s 270A . It was argued that while doing so asese request for condonation of delay in filing the apeal was not favourably considered. The Ld . CIT(A) was reported to have, relied upo n the legal maxim of —Vigilantibus et non dormient only those who are vigilant he dismis The Ld. C ouncil for the asese urged that it had justified grounds for the delay and that the same was not in tentional or with any malafide interests . Request was therefore made that the mater be set aside to th e file of the Ld. CIT(A) for re - adjudication after condoning the delay on merits of the case. It was asured that ful coperation would be tendered to t he Ld. CIT(A) now . The Ld . CIT DR did not object to asese pleas. 3 .0 We have heard rival submision in the light of material available on records. There is no denying the fact that the apelant has not & 1913 /Chny/2 024 : - 3 - : responded to the notices isued by the Ld. First Apelate Authority. Perusal of the order of Ld. First Apelate Authority however also shows that the Ld. First Apelate Authority has not properly apreciated the facts of the present case and merely aplied the judicial maxim of —Vigilantibus et non dormientibus jura subveniunt“ who are vigilant to dismis the apeal. We have also considered the arguments put forth by the apelant for its inability to comply which its nexus in medical isues of its auditors, as wel lack of re ceipt of timely comunications of the department. We are conscious of the fact that no litigant benefits by non - prosecution of its case. We therefore hold the view that ends of justice would be met if the apelant is given one more oportunity to present its case before the Ld. First Apelate Authority. Acordingly, we set aside the order of the Ld. First Apelate Authority and direct him to re - adjudicate the mater after condoning the delay and giving necesary oportunities to the asese and pas a speaking order. The asese shal, inter alia , be placing before the Ld . First Apelate Authority necesary documents to suport its case for the delay. Acordingly grounds of apeal raised by the a sese are alowed for statistical purposes. 4 .0 In the result, the apeal of the asese is alowed for statistical purposes.

& 1913 /Chny/2 024 : - 4 - : z∑û∏ y≤�π æ� ./