M/s. Vinayaka Educational Trust, Bangalore V. The Income-Tax Officer, (Exemptions) Ward-2, Bangalore

ITA 192/BANG/2023

AI Insights

The case involves Vinayaka Educational Trust, a charitable trust, which appealed against the order of the National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi, for the assessment year 2016-17. The appeal was initially dismissed by the CIT(A) due to a significant delay in filing. The trust argued that the delay was caused by the non-receipt of notices and the assessment order, as they were sent to an outdated email address. The Tribunal found merit in the trust's argument, noting the importance of substantial justice and remanded the case back to the CIT(A) for a thorough examination on merits.

• Counselvise Citation: [2023] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 124284 (ITAT-BANGALORE)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 month(s) 21 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 07-05-2023
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: A
• Next Hearing Date: 07-05-2023
• Assessment Year: 2016-2017
• Appeal Filed On: 16-03-2023
• Other Referred Cases: Collector Land Acquisition Vs. Mst. Katiji & Ors.
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act, 1961
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Section: 144; 142(1); 143(2)

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ‘A’ BENCH : BANGALORE BEFORE SHRI CHANDRA POOJARI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SMT. BEENA PILLAI, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA No. 192/Bang/2023 Assessment Year : 2016-17 M/s. Vinayaka Educational Trust, #2/55, Outer Ring Road, Opposite Lumbini Gardens, Veerannapalya, Nagavara, Bangalore – 560 045. PAN: AAATV6033C Vs. The Income Tax Officer (Exemptions), Ward – 2, Bangalore. APPELLANT RESPONDENT Assessee by : Smt. Sunaina Bhatia, CA Revenue by : Shri Sankar Ganesh K, Addl. CIT (DR) Date of Hearing : 08-05-2023 Date of Pronouncement : 08-05-2023 ORDER PER BEENA PILLAI, JUDICIAL MEMBER Present appeal is filed by assessee against order dated 20.01.2023 passed by NFAC, Delhi for A.Y. 2016-17. 2. At the outset, the Ld.AR submitted that the Ld.CIT(A) dismissed appeal in limine as there was a delay in filing the appeal by 386 days. 3. The Ld.AR submitted before the Ld.CIT(A) as under: “2.1 The appellant has filed the following facts of the case : Page 2 of 5 ITA No. 192/Bang/2023 "The appellant, Vinayaka Educational Trust is a Charitable Trust engaged in providing education having PAN AAA TV6033C at No. 2/55/1, MRG House, Outer Ring Road, Opposite Lumbini Garden, Veerannapalya, Bangalore - 560045. 2. For the assessment year 2016-17, based on the audited statement of accounts, the appellant has computed its total income as per the provisions of the Income Tax Act, 1961 and has filed its return of income on 17th October, 2016 declaring a total income at Nil. 3. Further on 31st January 2 020, while viewing the income tax portal our consultant informed that there was pending e-proceedings and an outstanding demand of Rs. 68,56,300/- under section 144 and dated 25th December, 2018. 4. The assessment was completed by the Learned Assessing Officer by denying the claim made under section 11(1) of the Income Tax Act, 196 1 recomputed the appellants income to Rs.1,54,95,958/- and raised a demand of Rs. 68,56.300/-. 5. The Learned Assessing Officer has also stated in the assessment order Page no 1 and 2 that there was no response from the assesse to the notice issued to the assesse. 6. In the above regards, all the mail communication was made to the Trusts old mail ID (balakrishnaitr(at)gmail.com) which belongs to their previous Accountant. However, they have updated their latest Email ID (exe .accounts(at)groupmrg.com) in the Profile in their Income Tax Portal during the Assessment Year 2017 - 2018 and they are continuously using the same mail ID. 7. During the Assessment Proceedings, all n tices were sent to the old mail ID hence, the appellant could not respond to the notices. 8. It is seen from the Income Tax portal that the notice under section 143(2) was actually served upon the assessee on 1 8th December, 2017. 9. Therefore, it is submitted that the order of Learned Assessing Officer is in violation of principles of natural justice on account of omission to serve the notice under section 143(2) within the prescribed time limit for initiation of assessment proceedings. Consequently, the impugned reassessment order is liable to be quashed. 10. Since, the Learned Assessing Officer has not served the notice under section 143(2), 142(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 and issue letters, the initiation of assessment proceedings is bad in law and contrary to the provisions of the Income Tax Act. 11. The appellant is aggrieved with the decision of the Assessing Officer and hence this appeal before the' learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals).” 4. Before us, the Ld.AR has filed the condonation petition which was annexed with the form 35. It is submitted therein that the Page 3 of 5 ITA No. 192/Bang/2023 delay was caused due to the fact that none of the notices and the assessment order relating to assessee for the relevant Assessment Year under consideration were served on assessee and the assessee came to know about the same only on 31.01.2020 when the last day of filing the appeal had already expired. It is submitted that the address mentioned in the assessment order was not the registered address of the assessee as on the passing of the assessment order and that the assessee had changed the address on the PAN which was brought to the notice of the Ld.CIT(A). It is also submitted that the email ID of the assessee was also intimated post the assessment order to the Ld.CIT(A). However the notices by the Ld.CIT(A) were also sent to the old address which was no longer in use by the assessee. 5. The Ld.AR thus submitted that in the interest of justice, the appeal may be remanded to the Ld.CIT(A) as the delay in filing the appeal before the Ld.CIT(A) was not because of any lapse or with any intention. The reason for delay was beyond the control of assessee. She placed reliance on the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of Collector Land Acquisition Vs. Mst. Katiji & Ors., reported in (1987) 167 ITR 471. We have perused the submissions advanced by both sides in the light of records placed before us. 6. When substantial justice and technical consideration are pitted against each other, the cause of substantial justice deserves to be preferred, for the other side cannot claim to have vested right for injustice being done because of non deliberate delay. We have to prefer substantial justice rather than technicality in deciding the issue. As observed by Hon’ble Page 4 of 5 ITA No. 192/Bang/2023 Supreme Court in case of Collector Land Acquisition Vs. Mst. Katiji & Ors.(supra), if the application of the assessee for condoning the delay is rejected, it would amount to legalise injustice on technical ground when the Tribunal is capable of removing injustice and to do justice. Accordingly, we condone the delay of 386 days in filing the appeal before Ld.CIT(A). 7. We remand this appeal back to Ld.CIT(A) with the direction to pass necessary orders on merits after considering the evidences and documents filed by assessee in respect of its claims. Needless to say that proper opportunity of being heard must be granted to assessee. In the result, the appeal filed by assessee stands allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced in the open court on 08 th May, 2023. Sd/- Sd/- (CHANDRA POOJARI) (BEENA PILLAI) Accountant Member Judicial Member Bangalore, Dated, the 08 th May, 2023. /MS / Page 5 of 5 ITA No. 192/Bang/2023 Copy to: 1. Appellant 2. Respondent 3. CIT 4. DR, ITAT, Bangalore 5. Guard file By order Assistant Registrar, ITAT, Bangalore