ALL INDIA PRESIDING OFFICERS CONFERENCE,NEW DELHI vs. CIT(EXEMPTION), NEW DELHI
No AI summary yet for this case.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, DELHI BENCH “A”: NEW DELHI
Before: SHRI M. BALAGANESH & SHRI ANUBHAV SHARMA
1 ITA No. 1498/Del/2023 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH “A”: NEW DELHI
BEFORE SHRI M. BALAGANESH, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI ANUBHAV SHARMA, JUDICIAL MEMBER
ITA No.1498 /DEL/2023 U/s 10(23C)(iv) of the I.T. Act
M/s All India Presiding Officers’ Vs Commissioner of Conference, Income-tax (Exemptions), Room No. 339, Third Floor, New Delhi. Lok Sabha Secretariat, Parliament House Annexe, New Delhi. PAN- AAEAA3763F
APPELLANT RESPONDENT
Assessee represented by Sh. Rajat Jain, CA & Sh. Aashish Mendiratta, CA
Department represented by Sh. Dayainder Singh Sidhu, CIT(DR)
Date of hearing 25.07.2023 Date of pronouncement 31.07.2023
O R D E R PER ANUBHAV SHARMA, JM: The assessee has come in appeal against the order dated 27.10.2017 passed
by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemptions), New Delhi u/s 10(23C)(iv) of
the Income-tax Act, 1961(hereinafter referred as the “Act”).
2 ITA No. 1498/Del/2023 2. Heard and perused the record.
On hearing learned AR it comes up that an application has been filed for
condonation of delay in filing of the appeal. The same has facts which also touch
the merits of case.
Learned AR submitted that the assessee is primarily functionality of Lok
Sabha and Speaker of Lok Sabha is the ex-officio Chairperson; the Deputy
Chairman, Rajya Sabha and Deputy Speaker, Lok Sabha are two Vice-
chairpersons. The assessee is a forum of Central and State Legislatures with Dy.
Speakers of all States and Union Territories legislatures as members. It was
incorporated in 1921 and primarily has a mandate to create appropriate forum for
exchange of views and ideas among the legislatures and for experience sharing. It
was submitted that so far 83 conferences have been held and the assessee has
sought to seek solutions to many challenges confronting the country and has made
efforts in strengthening Parliamentary democracy through recommendations,
resolutions, decisions etc.
Learned AR pointed out that at one hand there was no notice of the hearing
and on the other hand the order dated 27.10.2017 was not communicated and that
when the assessee came to know of the order, attempts were made to get the issue
revived at the end of learned CIT(Exemptions) only and that delayed the filing of
3 ITA No. 1498/Del/2023 appeal in Tribunal. Learned AR submitted that assessee was not taking services of
any professional so attempts were made for getting the approval at the end of
learned CIT(Exemptions) only, unless learned CIT(Exemptions) informed vide
order dated 4.10.2019 that assessee should avail the remedy of appeal. It is
submitted that thereafter there was covid-19 pandemic and changes in incumbency
of officers handling the work. It was also mentioned that there was migration of the
Lok Sabha Secretariat from physical filing to e-file system since 2018 that also
derailed the matter.
Learned DR has, however, submitted that the explanation is not satisfactory.
It comes up from the aforesaid that before learned CIT(Exemptions) the case
of assessee could not be represented appropriately. On inquiry from Bench it came
up that the Secretariat of the assessee was making correspondences and there was
no Authorized Representative making personal appearances.
Then, it can be appreciated from the impugned order dated 27.10.2017 that the
application in Form 56 was filed on 3.10.2016 and the application was rejected by
learned CIT(Exemptions) without any discussion of the nature of activities. The
order does not disclose that what specific information was called from the assessee.
4 ITA No. 1498/Del/2023 7. A copy of letter dated 29.8.2018 available at page no. 2 to 6 of Paper Book
shows that Shri Ajay K. Munshi, Director, Lok Sabha Secretariat was
corresponding with learned CIT(Exemptions) and by this letter dated 29.8.2018
detailed account of the nature of activities of the assessee, its composition,
corresponding was mentioned. It was also mentioned in the letter that as mentioned
in the impugned order dated 27.10.2017 that no response was filed, the fact is
incorrect as no letter was received from the office of the learned CIT(Exemptions).
It was also pointed out in this letter dated 29.8.2018 that a similar body with name
and title “Indian Parliamentary Group and CPA India Region” established with
similar objectives have been granted exemption.
The Bench is of the considered view that taking into consideration the fact
that in the impugned order dated 27.10.2017 learned CIT(Exemptions) has not
given details of the notices issued and the manner of issue of notices nor the order
mentions as to what information was called and examined to conclude that
assessee is not involved in any educational, medical or charitable activities. The
impugned order dated 27.10.2017 does not show, it was ever communicated to the
assessee. It is also established that the assessee being not well informed had made
bona fide efforts at the end of learned CIT(Exemptions) only instead of preferring
an appeal. Being a public institution, no motive can be attributed. Learned AR has
5 ITA No. 1498/Del/2023 also cited certain circumstances which show that due to transitional changes and
organization obstacles there was delay in preferring appeal before this Tribunal.
Consequently, the delay in filing appeal is condoned and appeal is allowed for statistical purposes. Issue is restored to the file of learned CIT(Exemptions)
with direction to give reasonable opportunity of hearing to the assessee and
thereafter pass afresh order.
Order pronounced in open court on 31.07.2023.
Sd/- Sd/- (M. BALAGANESH ) (ANUBHAV SHARMA) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER *MP* Copy forwarded to: 1. Appellant 2. Respondent 3. CIT 4. CIT(Appeals) 5. DR: ITAT ASSISTANT REGISTRAR ITAT, NEW DELHI
