SATNAM EDUCATION AND RURAL WELFARE SOCIETY,MOHALI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER,WARD 6(1), MOHALI

Grounds of appeal are as under: -

That on facts, circumstances and legal position of the case, the Worthy CIT(A) has erred in treating the appeal filed by the appellant as not-maintainable by invoking the provisions of s. 249(2) of the Act even when the appellant had bonafide and reasonable cause which led to delay in filing of appeal.

That on facts, circumstances and legal position of the case, Worthy CIT(A) has erred in confirming the addition of Rs. Rs. 1,32,20,296/- made by Ld. AO by erroneously disallowing of claim of exemption u/s 10(23C)(vi).

That on facts, circumstances and legal position of the case, Worthy CIT(A) has erred in confirming above addition of Rs. 1,32,20,296/- made by Ld. AO on account of late filing of Audit Report in Form 10BB and ITR.

That on facts, circumstances and legal position of the case, the order passed by Ld. AO and then by Worthy CIT(A) deserves to be quashed since the same have been passed without affording reasonable opportunity of being heard to the appellant.

That the appellant craves leave for any addition, deletion or amendment in the grounds of appeal on or before the disposal of the same.

Brief facts of the case, as submitted by the ld. Counsel of the Assessee are as under:-

During the proceedings before us, ld. Counsel for the Assessee brought it on record that there was a delay in filing the Return of Income by the Assessee because the Assessee had applied for exemption 10(23C) on 29.9.2020. The due date of filing of the return was 15.02.2021 and for filing the due date of Audit report was 15.01.2021. But the ld. CIT (Exemption) passed order granting registration u/s 10(23C) of the Act to the Assessee on 17.03.2021. It is because of this reason that there was a delay in filing of the Return as well as the Audit Report. But both the Assessing Officer as well as the CIT(A) did not accept the delay and they made an addition to the entire income of the Assessee. The ld. CIT(A) in his order has clearly mentioned that since the condonation of delay is not granted, therefore, there is no need to adjudicate on the merits of the case and accordingly he has dismissed the appeal of the Assessee without giving any findings on the merits of the case.

During the proceedings before us, the ld. Counsel for the Assessee has submitted that the delay was on account of passing of the order by the CIT( E) u/s 10(23C) of the Act, and since the delay was beyond the control of the Assessee, therefore, delay should be condoned and the matter should be heard on merits.

The ld. DR relied on the order of the CIT(A),.

We have considered the findings of the Assessing Officer as well as the CIT(A) and we find that the appeal has been dismissed by the JCIT(A) simply because the return of income was filed beyond the time prescribed by the Act, without considering the fact that the delay was beyond the control of the Assessee and the delay on the part of the CIT (E) in passing order u/s 10(23C) of the Act. Accordingly, we condone the delay and remand this matter to the file of the CIT(A) for adjudication afresh on merit.

Accordingly, in view of the above, in the interest of justice, the matter is remitted to the file of the CIT(A), to be decided afresh on merit, in accordance with law, on affording due and adequate opportunity of hearing to the Assessee. The Assessee, no doubt, shall cooperate in the fresh proceedings before the CIT(A). All pleas available under the law shall remain so available to the assessee. Ordered accordingly.

In the result, the appeal is allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced on 26.09.2024. ( A. D. JAIN ) Accountant Member “आर.के.”

""यथ"/ The Respondent 3. आयकर आयु"त/ CIT

"वभागीय ""त"न"ध, आयकर अपील"य आ"धकरण, च"डीगढ़/ DR, ITAT, CHANDIGARH 5. गाड" फाईल/ Guard File आदेशानुसार/ By order,