HIND SWARAJ TRUST,AHMEDNAGAR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, (EXEMPTION) WARD 1, NASHIK, NASHIK

PDF · subscribers
ITA 258/PUN/2024Status: DisposedITAT Pune14 May 2024AY 2013-14Bench: SHRI S.S.GODARA (Judicial Member), SHRI INTURI RAMA RAO (Accountant Member)3 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal held that the delay in filing the appeal before the CIT(A)/NFAC occurred during the COVID-19 pandemic period. Therefore, the CIT(A)/NFAC ought to have condoned the delay and decided the appeal on merits.

What were the facts?

The assessee, a trust registered u/s. 12A, filed its return claiming exemption u/s. 11, but the exemption was rejected due to delayed filing of Form 10B. A subsequent rectification petition was also rejected as time-barred.

What were the issues?

Whether the CIT(A)/NFAC was justified in dismissing the appeal in limine without condoning the delay, considering the pandemic period.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 11,Section 12A,Section 143(1),Section 154

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Cases cited in this judgment(1)Show list

Detected automatically from the text. The count shows how many other judgments on BharatTax rely on the same authority.

  • 441 ITR 722
    441 ITR 722 · 2022 · SC
    162 citing

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, PUNE BENCH “A”, PUNE

Before: SHRI S.S.GODARA & SHRI INTURI RAMA RAO

For Appellant: Shri Prasad S. Bhandari
For Respondent: Smt. Deepa Sanjay Hiray
Hearing: 14.05.2024Pronounced: 14.05.2024

This is an appeal filed by the assessee directed against the order of National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi (NFAC) dated 12.12.2023 for the assessment year 2013-14.

2.

Briefly, the facts of the case are as under :

The appellant is a Trust registered u/s.12A of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘The Act’). The Return of Income for the A.Y. 2013-14 was filed on 26.09.2013 declaring Nil income after claiming exemption u/s.11 of the Act. The said return of income was processed u/s.143(1) of the Act rejecting the exemption u/s.11 on the ground that Form No.10B was filed with a delay.

3.

Being aggrieved by the said intimation u/s.143(1), the appellant filed a petition u/s.154 which came to be rejected vide order dated 04.01.2022 on the ground that rectification petition was filed on 19.03.2015, beyond the limitation prescribed u/s.154(7) of the Act.

4.

Being aggrieved, an appeal was filed before the CIT(A)/NFAC with a delay of 120 days. The CIT(A)/NFAC without condoning the delay dismissed the appeal in limine.

5.

Being aggrieved, the appellant is in appeal before us in this present appeal

6.

We heard the rival submissions and perused the relevant material on record. The only issue in the present appeal is whether the CIT(A)/NFAC was justified in dismissing the appeal in limine without condoning the delay of 120 days. In the present case, the order u/s.154 was passed on 04.01.2022 which was served on the assessee on 07.01.2022. The appeal was required to be filed within 30 days from the date of service, i.e. on or before 06.02.2022. However, the appeal came to be filed only on 06.06.2022. Thus, there is delay in filing the appeal.

We find that in the present case delay had occurred during the period of outbreak of covid-19 pandemic all over the country. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Cognizance for Extension of Limitation, In re (2022) 441 ITR 722 (SC) dated 10.01.2022 had taken cognizance of the difficulties faced by the citizens of the country on account of outbreak of covid-19 pandemic, extended the limitation prescribed by various statutes. Since the delay is covered on account of covid-19 pandemic, the CIT(A)/NFAC ought to have condoned the delay and adjudicated the issues in appeal on merits. In the above circumstances, the matter is remitted back to the file of CIT(A)/NFAC with a direction to condone the delay and adjudicate the issues in appeal on merit after affording reasonable opportunity of hearing to the assessee.

7.

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed. Order pronounced on this 14th day of May, 2024.

More judgments on Section 11

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

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →