SKHMANI SOCIETY FOR CITIZEN SERVICES,BATHINDA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER ( EXEMPTIONS), WARD, AMRITSAR
No AI summary yet for this case.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, AMRITSAR BENCH, AMRITSAR
Before: DR. M. L. MEENA & SH. ANIKESH BANERJEE
Per Dr. M. L. Meena, AM:
Both the appeals have been filed by the by the assessee against the separate orders of the ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), Bathinda dated 27.01.2017 & 23.01.2018 in respect of Assessment Years:
2 ITA Nos. 485 & 486/Asr/2019 Sukhmani Society for Citizen Services v. ITO 2013-14 & 2014-15 challenging therein not allowing the deduction u/s 11
of the Act particularly when the registration was restored on 15.05.2018 by
the Amritsar Bench of ITAT.
There was a delay of 383 days in filing the appeal by the assessee
before the Tribunal which is being explained on account of the delay in
getting approvals from the competent authority in the ADC office and
change of officer in-charge during that period. We consider the procedural
delay is bonafide for the reason that the delay was caused by the office of
ADC in granting the permission to file these appeals before the Tribunal.
Accordingly, the said delay of 383 days in filing appeals are hereby
condoned and the appeals are admitted to adjudicated on merits of the
case.
At the outset, the ld. counsel for the assessee has submitted vide
application dated 08.08.2023 that the assessee has been granted
registration u/s 12AA of the Act as restored by the Tribunal vide its order
dated 15.05.2018 by cancelling order passed by the CIT(E), Bathinda u/s
12AA(3) dated 06.01.2014. The ld. AR further submitted that the CIT(E),
Chandigarh has not given the appeal effect to the aforesaid order dated
3 ITA Nos. 485 & 486/Asr/2019 Sukhmani Society for Citizen Services v. ITO 15.05.2018, although a period of more than five years has been lapsed.
The ld. AR has submitted that the delay of the department against the order
of the Amritsar Bench of ITAT dated 15.05.2018 has been decided by the
jurisdictional Punjab & Haryana High Court, however, he could not produce
the copy of the said judgment. Therefore, he requested that both the
appeals be remanded back to the ld. CIT(A) to pass the order afresh to
examine the matter in the light of the decision of the Hon’ble Punjab &
Haryana High Court. The assessee undertakes to file the copy of the said
judgment before CIT(A) with other documentary evidence to seek the relief
in the matter.
Per contra, ld. DR has no objection to the request of the counsel of
the assessee.
Having heard the rival contention, perusal of the record and the
impugned order, we consider it deem fit to remand back the matter to the
file of the CIT(A) to examine the issue in the light of the decision of the
Hon’ble Punjab & Haryana High Court which is being claimed to be
delivered in favor of the assessee. The CIT(A) shall grant an adequate
opportunity of being heard to the assessee and the Assessing Officer (AO),
4 ITA Nos. 485 & 486/Asr/2019 Sukhmani Society for Citizen Services v. ITO while adjudicating the matter. Accordingly, both the appeals are remanded
back to the ld. CIT(A).
In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed for
statistical purposes.
Order pronounced in the open court on 23.08.2023
Sd/- Sd/- (Anikesh Banerjee) (Dr. M. L. Meena) Judicial Member Accountant Member *GP/Sr.PS* Copy of the order forwarded to: (1) The Appellant: (2) The Respondent: (3) The CIT(Appeals) (4) The CIT concerned (5) The Sr. DR, I.T.A.T. True Copy By Order
