NEYVELI EDUCATIONAL TRUST,PANRUTI vs. ITO, EXEMPTIONS WARD-2, CHENNAI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 925/CHNY/2023Status: DisposedITAT Chennai25 January 2024AY 2018-19Bench: SHRI MAHAVIR SINGH, HON’BLE (Vice President), SHRI MANJUNATHA.G, HON’BLE (Accountant Member)3 pages

In favour of the Revenue: the assessee's appeal was dismissed. From the AI summary of this appeal.

AI SummaryDismissed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal found the appeal to be defective due to a significant delay in filing and incorrect particulars in the appeal form. The appeal was dismissed as unadmitted for these defects.

What were the facts?

The assessee, a Trust, claimed exemption under Section 11 of the Income Tax Act. The Assessing Officer rejected the exemption under Section 11(1A) and made an addition. The CIT(A) dismissed the assessee's appeal.

What were the issues?

Whether the appeal filed by the assessee is maintainable given the delay and defects in the filing documents.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 11,Section 11(1A),Section 143(3)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, ‘A’ BENCH: CHENNAI

Before: SHRI MAHAVIR SINGH, HON’BLE & SHRI MANJUNATHA.G, HON’BLE

Hearing: 25.01.2024Pronounced: 25.01.2024

आदेश / O R D E R

PER MANJUNATHA.G, AM:

1.

This appeal filed by the assessee is directed against the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), Income Tax Department, National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi, dated 23.08.2022, and pertains to assessment year 2018-19.

2.

The brief facts of the case are that the assessee is a Trust filed its return of income for AY 2017-18 on 30.03.2018 admitting ‘NIL’ total income after claiming exemption u/s.11 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short “the Act"). The assessment has been completed u/s.143(3) of the Act on 18.03.2021 by making addition of Rs.17,67,500/- by rejecting exemption claimed u/s.11(1A) of the Act. The assessee carried the matter in appeal before the First Appellate Authority, but could not succeed. The Ld.CIT(A) for the reasons stated in their appellate order dated 23.08.2022, dismissed the appeal and upheld additions made towards income. Aggrieved by the order of the Ld.CIT(A), the assessee is in appeal before us.

3.

None appeared for the assessee. We have heard the Ld.DR, perused the materials available on record and gone through orders of the authorities below. We find that the appeal filed by the assessee is defective on two counts. The first defective is delay in filing of the appeal. The Registry has noticed 307 days delay in filing of the appeal. The assessee neither filed any petition for condonation of delay nor explained the reasons. The second defective is incorrect particulars in Form No.36 filed by the assessee. On one hand, it was stated that the appellant is Shri S.

Rajendran, on the other hand, it was stated that the appellant is Neyveli Educational Trust. We cannot make out who is assessee in the present appeal, whether it is Shri S.Rajendran individual or Neyveli Educational Trust. Further, Form No.36 filed by the assessee is defective, because, there is no verification as required under the law as specified in Form No.36 itself. From the above, it is abundantly clear that the appeal filed by the 3 :: assessee is defective which cannot be admitted, and thus, appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed as unadmitted for defects.

4.

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed as unadmitted for defects.

More judgments on Section 11

All 7,190 judgments and leading authorities on Section 11 →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →