GAYATRI SHIKSHA NYAS,AGRA V. ITO (EXEMPTION), AGRA, AGRA

ITA 520/AGR/2025

AI Insights

The case involves Gayatri Shiksha Nyas, a trust engaged in educational activities, which appealed against the orders of the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) -4, Chennai, for the assessment years 2016-17 and 2017-18. The primary issue was the treatment of voluntary contributions received by the trust, which were initially processed under section 143(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, and treated as income under section 11(1)(d). The trust filed a rectification application under section 154, which was rejected, leading to a delayed appeal to the CIT(A). The CIT(A) dismissed the appeals primarily due to the substantial delays in filing, which were not adequately justified by the trust. The Tribunal found merit in the trust's arguments for a condonation of delay, considering the nature of the trust's activities and the inadvertent oversight in not addressing the initial rejection of their claim promptly.

• Counselvise Citation: [2026] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 838320 (ITAT-AGRA)
• Duration Of Justice: 3 month(s) 3 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 16-02-2026
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: SMC
• Assessment Year: 2017-2018
• Appeal Filed On: 12-11-2025
• Other Referred Cases: Collector, Land Acquisition vs. MST Katiji, 167 ITR 471, SC
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act, 1961
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: ANIL KUMAR
• Assessee Lawyers: SHASHANK AGARWAL
• Keywords: Condonation of delay; Set aside; Additional evidence; Reasonable cause; Principle of natural justice; Charitable institution
• Section: 154; 11

Judgement Text

" IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, AGRA (SMC) BENCH, AGRA BEFORE : SHRI S. RIFAUR RAHMAN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA No. 513 & 520/Agr/2025 Assessment Year: 2016-17 & 2017-18 Gayatri Shiksha Nyas 503, Narayan Tower, Sanjay Place, Agra Vs. Income Tax Officer, (Exemption), Agra PAN : AACTG2179G (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee by Sh. Shashank Agarwal, Adv. Department by Sh. Anil Kumar, Sr. DR Date of hearing 16.02.2026 Date of pronouncement 16.02.2026 ORDER Both these appeals have been filed by assessee against separate orders of the learned Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) -4, Chennai dated 29.08.2025 & 16.09.2025 for the Assessment Years 2016-17 & 2017-18. 2. Since the issues involved in both these appeals are similar, the same were heard together and are being disposed of by this consolidated order for the sake of convenience and brevity. We take up ITA No. 513/Agr/2025 as a lead case. Printed from counselvise.com ITA No.513 & 520/Agr/2025 2 | P a g e 3. In the ITA No. 513/Agr/2025, aggrieved with the above order, assessee is in appeal before ITAT, raising following grounds of appeal : 1. That the learned CIT(A) erred in law and on facts in dismissing the appeal solely on the ground of delay of 2350 days, without appreciating the bona fide and reasonable cause duly explained in the condonation petition. 2. That the learned CIT(A) has failed to appreciate that the appellant was diligently pursuing the remedy available under Section 154 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, and the delay in filing the appeal was neither intentional nor deliberate, but caused by a bona fide belief that the issue would be resolved in rectification proceedings. 3. That the Ld. CIT(A) erred in not condoning the delay despite established judicial principles that substantial justice should prevail over technical considerations (Collector, Land Acquisition vs. MST Katiji, 167 ITR 471, SC). 4. That the learned CIT(A), after calling for a remand report from the ITO (Exemption), Agra, and after conducting multiple hearings on merits, erred in dismissing the appeal solely on the ground of delay, thereby acting Inconsistently and in violation of the principles of natural justice. 5. That the learned CIT(A) erred in not admitting and considering additional evidences under Rule 46A, which were crucial to determine the true nature of voluntary contributions and to decide the matter on merits, failure to do so renders the order bad in law and void ab initio. 6. That the learned CIT(A) erred in not adjudicating the matter on merits despite the appellant's return being filed under section 10(23C) (illad), where receipts were below Rs. 1 crore, making it fully eligible for exemption. 7. That the Ld. CIT(A) erred in sustaining the addition under section 143(1) by treating voluntary contributions as income under section 11(1)(d), whereas the appellant never claimed exemption under section 11 but under section 10(23C)(iiiad). 8. That in view of the facts and circumstances of the case and the settled law, the order passed by the Ld. CIT(A) deserves to be set aside, and the exemption under section 10(23C)(lilad) be allowed. 9. The appellant craves leave to add, alter, amend, or withdraw any ground of appeal before or during the hearing. Printed from counselvise.com ITA No.513 & 520/Agr/2025 3 | P a g e 4. Brief facts of the case are, the assessee filed its return of income on 31.10.2017, the return was process u/s 143(1) of the Act, 1961 (for short ‘Act’) while processing return u/s 143(1) of the Act came up CPC treated the voluntary contributions received by the assessee as income u/s 11(1)(d) of the Act and brought to tax. 5. Aggrieved with the above order, the assessee filed a rectification application u/s 154 of the Act which was rejected by the CPC with the observations that it is not a mistake apparent from record. 6. Aggrieved with the above order, the assessee preferred an appeal before ld. CIT(Appeals) on 05.12.2024. The appeal filed by the assessee with a huge delay of 2350 days delay and ld. CIT(Appeals) observed that the assessee has not justified such delay by submitting sufficient cause in the reasons submitted by the assessee and the assessee merely believed that the issue under consideration may be resolved u/s 154 of the Act itself. Since it was not rectified, the assessee had filed this appeal. He further, observed that the issue under consideration is whether exemption the claimed u/s 11(1)(d) of the Act or section 10(23C)(iiiad) of the Act. Therefore, it is not a mistake apparent from record and not convinced with the submission, he rejected the condonation of delay application filed by the assessee, accordingly, he dismissed the appeal. Printed from counselvise.com ITA No.513 & 520/Agr/2025 4 | P a g e 7. Similarly, in the next assessment year also similar issue raised by the assessee with the delay of 2280 days. Accordingly, ld. CIT(Appeals) has not condoned the delay and accordingly, dismissed the appeal. 8. Aggrieved with the above order, the assessee is in appeal before us. 9. At the time of hearing, ld. AR of the assessee brought to our notice that the appeal filed by the assessee before ld. ITAT with a delay of 10 days. He prayed the same may be condoned. 10. With regard to substantial delay before ld. CIT(Appeals), he submitted that the assessee has filed condonation of delay before ld. CIT(Appeals) and submitted that the reason for delay is the assessee was not aware rejection of claim by the CPC and assessee came to know of the same when there is a demand pending against the assessee and further submitted that the delay is not intentional and the issue is not considered whether the assessee is eligible to claim the exemption u/s 10(23C)(iiiad) of the Act, Because the donation received by the assessee is less than 1 crore and the assessee is in the charitable activity imparting education. He submitted that the condonation was not accepted by the ld.CIT(A) and also not decided the issue on merit. Printed from counselvise.com ITA No.513 & 520/Agr/2025 5 | P a g e 11. On the other hand, ld. DR brought to our notice that there is substantial delay in filing the above appeal before ld. CIT(Appeals) and the assessee has not substantiated sufficient cause of such delay. He supported the finding of ld. CIT(Appeals) 12. Considered rival submissions and material placed on record. We observed that the assessee is a trust and running education centre. During the year under consideration, the assessee has received voluntary contributions of Rs. 29,44,000/- for process u/s 143(1) of the Act, CPC treated the same as voluntary donation u/s 11(1)(d) of the Act. The assessee filed rectification application against the above said order, however, the same was rejected. The assessee did not file an appeal before First Appellate Authority on time with the understanding that the above mistake will be rectified u/s 154 of the Act. However, the assessee was not aware of fact that the same was rejected. Hence, the appeal before ld. CIT(Appeals) was filed with substantial delay of 2350 days. 13. Considering that fact that the assessee is in the charitable activity towards imparting education and being small trust running the charitable trust, in our considered view, for the sake of substantial justice, the assessee should be given one more opportunity. Accordingly, we condoned the delay in filing the appeal before ld. CIT(Appeals) and also Printed from counselvise.com ITA No.513 & 520/Agr/2025 6 | P a g e before us with delay of 10 days. Accordingly, the matter under consideration are remitted back to the file of ld. CIT(Appeals) to adjudicate the issue on merit. At the same time, we direct ld. CIT(Appeals) to give proper opportunity being heard to the assessee to file the relevant document if required before First Appellate Authority. 14. The assessee also directed to appear before ld. CIT(Appeals) without taking any adjournment to the facts in Assessment Year 2016-17, the findings in A.Y 2016-17 are applicable mutatis mutandis. Thus, both the appeals preferred by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes. 15. In the result, both appeals filed by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced in the open court on 16.02.2026 Sd/- (S. RIFAUR RAHMAN) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Dated: 18.02.2026 *Gankesh Kumar, Sr. PS Copy forwarded to: 1. Appellant 2. Respondent 3. CIT 4. CIT(A) 5. DR Asst. Registrar, ITAT, Agra Printed from counselvise.com "