SRI PRASANNA ANJANEYA SWAMY VARI DEVASTHNAM TRUST,VIJAYAWADA vs. THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX(EXEMPTION), HYDERBAD

PDF · subscribers
ITA 124/VIZ/2021Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam16 March 2022AY 2015-165 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal held that the CIT(E) passed an ex-parte order without giving the assessee a proper opportunity to be heard. Therefore, the order of the CIT(E) was set aside to provide one more opportunity to the assessee.

What were the facts?

The assessee, a temple trust, filed its return of income. The CIT(E) issued a notice under Section 263 and passed an ex-parte order without considering the assessee's submissions, despite the assessee seeking adjournments due to the COVID-19 pandemic.

What were the issues?

Whether the CIT(E) erred in passing an ex-parte order under Section 263 without considering the assessee's submissions and providing adequate opportunity, especially in light of the pandemic?

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 263,Section 142(1),Section 143(3)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, VISAKHAPATNAM BENCH, VISAKHAPATNAM

Before: SHRI DUVVURU RL REDDY, HON’BLE & SHRI S BALAKRISHNAN, HON’BLE

For Appellant: Shri C.Subrahmanyam, AR
Hearing: 07.03.2022Pronounced: 16.03.2022

अपीलधथी की ओर से/ Appellant by : Shri C.Subrahmanyam, AR प्रत्यधथी की ओर से / Respondent by : Shri MN Murthy Naik, CIT, DR सुनवधई की तधरीख / Date of Hearing : 07.03.2022 घोर्णध की तधरीख/Date of Pronouncement : 16.03.2022 आदेश /O R D E R Per Shri Duvvuru RL Reddy, Judicial Member :

Condonation of Delay This appeal is filed by the assessee against the order of Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemptions) [CIT(E)], Hyderabad dated 24.03.2021 for the Assessment Year (A.Y.)2015-16 with a delay of 44 days. The assessee filed petition for condonation of delay, stating that the delay was due to Covid-19 pandemic and lockdown declared by the State

M/s Sri Prasanna Anjaneya Swamy Vari Devasthanam Trust, Vijayawada Government. There was no malafide intention in filing the appeal belatedly and hence requested to condone the delay and admit the appeal, for which the Ld.DR has raised no objection. After going through the condonation petition filed, we observe that there is sufficient cause for the delay in filing the appeal, hence, we condone the delay and admit the appeal.

2.

Brief facts of the case are that the assessee is a Temple Trust, filed it’s return of income for the A.Y.2015-16, admitting the income of Rs.1,43,46,896/- and paid the taxes. The assessee Trust has received notice u/s 142(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short ‘Act’) on 04.10.2017. The assessee Trust had given it’s reply and after considering the reply, the AO has accepted the returned income and the assessment was completed u/s 143(3). Thereafter, the Ld.CIT(E), Hyderabad, issued notice to the assessee u/s 263 of the Act on 28.01.2020. On receipt of the said notice, the assessee filed it’s reply, but without considering the submissions made by the assessee, the Ld.CIT(E) passed order u/s 263 of the Act.

3.

On being aggrieved, the assessee preferred an appeal before the Tribunal and raised the following grounds : 1. The learned Commissioner of Income Tax(Exemption) has M/s Sri Prasanna Anjaneya Swamy Vari Devasthanam Trust, Vijayawada erred both on facts and on law in passing the order u/s. 263 of Income Tax Act., without jurisdiction in case of assessee AOP, which is not registered under Section 12AA or Section 10(23C) though the Jurisdiction of Commissioner of Income Tax covers only Trusts & Other Societies registered under Section 12A or Section 10(23C).

2. The Commissioner of Income Tax(Exemption) has erred both on law and on facts in passing order u/s. 263 revoking the order of A.O without considering the submissions made by the 'a' on 29.06.2020 and 25.01.2021 and failed to follow the principle of natural justice while passing the order.

3. The Commissioner of Income Tax(Exemption) has erred on both facts and law in passing the order u/s. 263 of Income Tax Act., without considering the fact that the AM has examined while assessment proceedings in detail, the issues pointed out by Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemption).

4. The Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemption) has erred on both facts and law in passing the order u/s 263 of Income Tax Act., though the amounts spend by the ‘a’ are for attainments of its objectives and should be allowable as expenditure.

5. Any other ground that may be urged at the time of hearing.

6. It is prayed to drop the proceedings and relief be granted.

At the outset, it was the submission of the assessee that the Ld.CIT(E) has not considered the reply filed by the Trust and has passed an ex-parte order without giving any opportunity to the assessee. Therefore, the assessee has pleaded for one more opportunity before the Ld.CIT(E).

M/s Sri Prasanna Anjaneya Swamy Vari Devasthanam Trust, Vijayawada

4.

On the other hand, the Ld.DR stated that the Ld.CIT(E) had issued two opportunities, but the assessee failed to appear before the Ld.CIT(E). Thereafter, the Ld.CIT(E) passed order, after considering the material available on record. Therefore, submitted that the order passed by the Ld.CIT(E) may be upheld.

5.

We have heard both the parties and perused the material placed on record. It is undisputed fact that the Ld.CIT(E) has passed an ex-parte order u/s 263. Show cause notice was issued u/s 263 on 28.02.2020 and the same was served on the assessee. The assessee sought adjournment and the case was posted for hearing on 23.03.2020. Another letter was filed on 19.06.2020 seeking one more opportunity to the assessee to represent it’s case. Considering the said fact, the Ld.CIT(E) posted the case on 25.06.2020. On that particular day, since there was no response from the assessee, the Ld.CIT(E) passed order u/s 263. The Ld.CIT(E) has given two opportunities to the assessee, but the assessee did not appear before the Ld.CIT(E) to represent it’s case. The contention of the assessee is that due to unavoidable circumstances, the assessee was unable to attend before the Ld.CIT(E). Considering the COVID-19 pandemic and in order to meet the principles of natural justice, we are of the view that one more opportunity should be given to the assessee. Therefore, we set

M/s Sri Prasanna Anjaneya Swamy Vari Devasthanam Trust, Vijayawada aside the order passed by the Ld.CIT(E) u/s 263 with a direction to decide this appeal on merits after giving one more opportunity of being heard to the assessee. The assessee is directed to cooperate with Ld.CIT(E) for deciding the appeal.

6.

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purpose.

Order pronounced in the open court on 16th March , 2022.

Sd/- Sd/- (एस बालाकृष्णन) (दुव्वूरु आर.एल रेड्डी) (S.BALAKRISHNAN) (DUVVURU RL REDDY) लेखा सदस्य/ACCOUNTANT MEMBER न्याधयक सदस्य/JUDICIAL MEMBER Dated : 16.03.2022 L.Rama, SPS आदेश की प्रतितिति अग्रेतिि/Copy of the order forwarded to:- 1. ननधधाऩरती/ The Assessee– M/s Sri Prasanna Anjaneya Swamy Vari Devasthanam Trust, Devalayam Street, Mutyalampadu, Vijayawada 2. रधजस्व/The Revenue –Income Tax Officer(Exemption), Rajahmundry 3. आयकर आयुक्त (अपील)/ The Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemption), Hyderabad 4. नवभधगीय प्रनतनननध, आयकर अपीलीय अनधकरण, नवशधखधपटणम/ DR,ITAT, Visakhapatnam 5..गधर्ा फ़धईल / Guard file आदेशधनुसधर / BY ORDER

Sr. Private Secretary ITAT, Visakhapatnam

More judgments on Section 263

All 13,616 judgments and leading authorities on Section 263 →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →