UJJAWAL SAWERA SAMITI,MEERUT vs. ITO WARD (EXEMPTION), DELHI

The appeal is time barred by 231 days. In the application the assessee stated that the appeal should have filed within 60 days but filed 231 days of delay. He further stated that assessee has sufficient cause for not filing the appeal within the time limit. 4. The brief facts of the case are that assessee is a Charitable Society dully registered under section 12A of the Act. The assessee filed its return of income for AY 2019-20 on 25-09-2019 declaring total income Nil. The case of the assessee was selected for complete scrutiny under compulsory criteria for the reason that registration u/s 12A has been withdrawn. The AO completed the assessment after making the addition of Rs.3,82,53,019/-holding that the registration of the trust has already been rejected. 5. Aggrieved the order of the ld. AO the assessee preferred the appeal before the Ld. NFAC who vide his order dated 19.02.2024 dismissed the appeal. Being aggrieved the order of the Ld. NFAC the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal. 6. Ld. AR of the assesse submitted that the registration certificate dated 28-02-2011 granted u/s 12AA of the Act was never cancelled, therefore the assessee is entitled to exemption u/s 11 of the Act. Assessee filed the registration certificate (PB –page no. 22) before the Ld. NFAC which was never rejected. In the case of Lal Chand Bhagat Ambika Ram v. CIT(Supreme Court)37 ITR 288 the court held that on no account should the Tribunal base its findings on suspicious , conjecture or surmises nor should it act on no evidence at all or on improper rejection of material and relevant evidence or partly on evidence or partly on suspicious, conjectures or surmises and if it does noting of that sort, its findings even though on question of facts will be liable to be set aside by this court.” Reliance also placed on the followings decisions: (i) Radhasoami Satsang v. CIT , 193 ITR 321 (ii) Director of Income Tax (E) v. Escorts cardic Diseases 300 ITR 75 (iii) CIT v ARJ Securities Printers 264 ITR 276 6. Ld. DR relied upon the order of the lower authorities. We have heard the parties and perused the material available on record. Ld. AR submitted that the registration of the trust never rejected. The assessee has filed the registration certificate (PB-page 22) before the authorities but there is no evidence on the file when this registration certificate was rejected. The department has accepted the return of income filed by the assessee for the A.Y. 2021-22, 2022-23, 2023- 24, 2018-19and 2016-17. There is no change of circumstances during the year under consideration as Ujjawal Sawera samiti vs. ITO Ward (Exemption) compared to earlier and subsequent years therefore, we are the considered view that the Revenue must follow a consistent pattern and should allowed the exemption as claimed by the assessee. The documents submitted by the assesse is to be verified by the assessing officer, therefore, considering the totality of the facts and circumstances of the case and in the interest of justice, we deem it proper to restore the issue to the file of the Assessing officer with a direction to verify the documents submitted by the assessee and decide the issue as per fact and law. The assessee is also directed to appear before the Ld. Assessing Officer and co-operate in the proceedings. The orders passed by the lower authorities are set aside and the grounds raised by the assessee are accordingly allowed for statistical purposes. 8. In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes.