VIJAYANAND CHARITABLE TRUST,KARAD vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER (EXEMPTION), WARD-1(1), PUNE, PUNE

BEFORE SHRI SATBEER SINGH GODARA, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND DR. DIPAK P. RIPOTE, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER I.T.A.No.928/PUN./2023 Assessment Year 2016-2017 Vijayanand Charitable The Income Tax Officer, Trust, Karve Road (Exemption), Ward-1(1), Goleshwar, Tal Karad vs. Aayakar Bhavan, PMT Bldg., Goleshwar, Karad, Swargate Shankarsheth PIN – 415 110 Road, Pune – 411 037. Maharashtra. Maharashtra. PAN AAATV7334A (Appellant) (Respondent) For Assessee : Smt. Deepa Khare For Revenue : Shri Sourabh Nayak, Addl.CIT Date of Hearing : 20.02.2024 Date of Pronouncement : 19.03.2024 ORDER PER SATBEER SINGH GODARA, J.M. :

This assessee’s appeal for assessment year 2016- 2017, arise against the National Faceless Appeal Centre’s [in short the “NFAC”] Delhi’s Din & Order no. ITBA/NFAC/S/250/ 28.07.2023 in proceedings 2023-24/1054704300(1), dated u/sec.154 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short “the Act”).

Heard both the parties at length. Case file perused.

2 I.T.A.No. 928/PUN./2023 1. “The Learned CIT(A) erred in law and on facts in not condoning delay in filing appeal without appreciating the facts and circumstances of the case.

2. The ld.CIT(A) erred in facts & in Law in confirming the action of Id AO in taxing the Gross Receipts of Rs.1,37,66,970.

3. Suffice to say, we note during the course of hearing that the learned CIT(A) has refused to condone the assessee’s alleged delay of “3 years 4 months” thereby not admitting it’s lower appeal for adjudication on merits as contemplated u/sec.250(6) of the Act.

4. We find with the able assistance of both the learned representatives that the assessee’s grievance in it’s lower appeal was directed against the DCIT (CPC)’s rectification order dated 03.07.2019. It had admittedly filed it’s lower appeal before learned CIT(A) on 09.12.2022. He holds in this factual backdrop that the assessee has not been able to show any reasonable cause so as to deserve condonation of the above delay.

3 I.T.A.No. 928/PUN./2023 5. We have given our thoughtful consideration to the foregoing sole issue of condonation of delay. It transpires during the course of hearing that the CIT(A) has nowhere even quantified the actual delay in filing of the assessee’s appeal as he has gone by the total intervening time duration between sec.154 order dated 03.07.2019 and the date of filing of the lower appeal on dated 09.12.2022 i.e., 3 years 5 months reduced by the prescribed limitation of 30 days. He has rather included the intervening covid-2019 pandemic outbreak period between 15.03.2020 to 28.02.2022 as well in otherwords despite the fact that hon’ble apex court’s directions in Cognizance for Extension of Limitation, In re 438 ITR 296 (SC), read with judgment in Cognizance for Extension of Limitation, In re 432 ITR 206 (SC), have already excluded the above covid- 19 pandemic outbreak period from for all intents and purposes under the limitation law.

5.1. This is indeed coupled with the fact that not only the CPC (Bangalore) had allegedly informed the assessee regarding transfer of sec.154 jurisdiction to the jurisdictional Assessing Officer but also the latter had filed the corresponding condonation averments along with the necessary records before the CIT(A) [pages 2 to 4 of the lower appellate order]. The same have nowhere been considered in the CIT(A)'s order as he has incorporated only a part thereof in para-6 page-10 of the lower appellate discussion. Case law

4 I.T.A.No. 928/PUN./2023 Collector, Land Acquisition vs., MST Katiji [1987] 167 ITR 471 (SC) has settled the law long back that all such technical aspects must make way for the cause of substantial justice. We, thus conclude that the learned CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts in considering the assessee’s delay of 3 years and 4 months rather than the actual one i.e., 03.07.2019 to 17.02.2020 [alleged sec.154 intimation dated 17.02.2020] and from 01.03.2022 to the date of filing appeal to 09.12.2022 which was duly explained. Faced with this situation, we restrain the assessee’s instant grievance back to the CIT(A) for his afresh appropriate adjudication as per law preferably within three effective opportunities of being heard. Ordered accordingly.