SMT KRISHNA DEVI EDUCATIONAL CHARITABLE SOCIETY ,HOSHIARPUR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOE TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE -1, JALANDHAR

ORDER Per: Bench:

A batch of appeal of the assessee was filed against the order of the ld.

Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-5, Ludhiana,[in brevity the ‘CIT (A)’] order passed u/s 250(6) of the Income Tax Act 1961, [in brevity the Act],for A.Ys. 2004-05 to 2006-07 & 2008-09 to 2010-11. The impugned orders were emanated from the order of the ld. Asstt. Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-II, Jalandhar (in brevity the ld. AO), order passed u/s 271(1)(b) of the Act. to 6/Asr/2023 Assessment Years: 2004-05 to 2006-07 2 & 2008-09 to 2010-11

“1. That the order passed by CIT(A) is against law and facts of the case. 2. That the penalty u/s 271(1)(b) is wrongly imposed and confirmed by CIT(A). 3. That there were regular changes in the management of the society and previous management was not aware about facts of this case. 4. That the judgements quoted by CIT(A) are not squarely applicable to this case. 5. That the assessee requests to add or amend the grounds of appeal before the same is heard or disposed off.” to 6/Asr/2023 Assessment Years: 2004-05 to 2006-07 3 & 2008-09 to 2010-11

4. Brief fact of the case is that the assessment of the assessee was completed u/s 153A of the Act related to search and seizure operation u/s 132 of the Act which was conducted at the premises of the assessee on dated18.02.2010. The penalty was issued for noncompliance of notice u/s 142(1) which was issued on 18.03.2011. The penalty was levied persuasion of section 274 r.w.s. 271(1)(b) of the Act, amount of Rs.10,000/- for non-compliance of the notice. Being aggrieved, assessee filed an appeal before the ld. CIT(A). The ld. CIT(A) passed the order on basis of the delayed submission of the appeal but finally the order was passed on point of limitation and merit also. The ld. CIT(A) upheld the order of the ld. AO.

Being aggrieved assessee filed appeals before us.

5. The ld. Counsel for the assessee prayed for adjournment but the adjournment petition was rejected. The counsel further submitted a written submission on 31.03.2023, which is kept in the record. As per the submission of the ld. AR the Society is formed on 18.11.2005. So, it is first assessable for the year is 2006-07.

The appeal before the ld. CIT(A) was filed in delay for 9 years. The ld. AR explained that there is a change of the trustee and accordingly the delay was made for filing the appeal before the ld. CIT(A). The verification of the record, it is found that the assessment u/s 153A of the assessee is already disposed for A.Ys.

2007-08 to 2009-10 bearing 126/Asr/2013 and to 6/Asr/2023 Assessment Years: 2004-05 to 2006-07 4 & 2008-09 to 2010-11 127/Asr/2013 date of order 21.12.2022 by the order of ITAT-Amritsar Bench. So, the for A.Y. 2008-09 and ITA No. 05/Asr/2023 for A.Y. 2009-10 related the penalty U/s 271(1)(b) is not standing as the related assessment is itself quashed. But there is no such any submission from the end of the assessee related to other assessment years about the fate of the quantum appeal.

“On condonation of delay Aslo, as the appeal has been filed with a delay of close to 10 years, the condonation of delay cannot be accepted as the reasons given for the delay of 10 years are without merit. As the proceedings under Section 271(l)(b) have been consequential to a search action u/s 132 which led to notices under Section 153A and 142(1), which were not complied with, the assessee cannot claim ignorance of the proceedings which were going on in his case. Hence, the condonation of delay application is rejected in this case. Reliance is being placed on the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Mani Mandir Sewa Nyas Samiti Ramghat Ayodhya vs. Commissioner of Income-tax reported in [2020] 119 taxmann.com 383 (SC) in which it has been held that "Where assessee sought for condonation of delay of four and half years in filing appeal against order of Tribunal on ground to 6/Asr/2023 Assessment Years: 2004-05 to 2006-07 5 & 2008-09 to 2010-11 of ailment of manager but High Court declined to condone delay on ground that there was nothing on record to show that manager was suffering from ailments which did not permit him to take initiative for filing of appeal, SLP against said decision was to be dismissed. It was otherwise duty of the assessee to watch the affairs of its firm and in any case, Late Padam Prakash Singh died on 22-11-2017. At least thereupon, the assessee was expected to file appeal immediately, but it was filed almost after one and half years. The delay in filing the appeal is not of few days or months but is of more than four and half years. Taking note of the aforesaid, we do not find any ground to condone the delay. Accordingly, the application for condonation of delay is dismissed."

Although, the and 5/Asr/2023 are allowed in favour of the assessee. But for the rest of the appeals, the- assessee was unable to bring the fact about the fate of quantum appeals u/s 153A. Further, the assessee was unable to submit the reasonable cause for non-compliance of notice during assessment to 6/Asr/2023 Assessment Years: 2004-05 to 2006-07 6 & 2008-09 to 2010-11 proceeding. So, the section 271(1)(b) stands firmly against the assessee. The assessee was not able to submit any such document related the other assessment years. The ld. CIT(A) has not made any discussion about the merit and grounds of the assessee. So, for 2/Asr/2023, 3/Asr/2023 and 6/Asr/2023 are remitted back to the ld. CIT(A) for further adjudication on basis of the merit of the case.

Order pronounced in the open court on 12.05.2023