, .. , IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL , SMC B BENCH, CHENNAI . , !' BEFORE SHRI A. MOHAN ALANKAMONY, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ./ I.T.A.NO.2379/MDS/2016 ( / ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2008-09 SHRI CHANDRAPRABHUJI MAHARAJ JAIN JUNA MANDIR TRUST, 345, MINT STREET, SOWCARPET, CHENNAI 600 079 VS THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, (EXEMPTION) II, CHENNAI PAN: AACTS6101J ( / APPELLANT) ( / RESPONDENT) / APPELLANT BY : SHRI D. ANAND, ADVOCATE /RESPONDENT BY : SHRI B. NAVEEN KUMAR, JCIT ! /DATE OF HEARING : 08.02.2017 '# ! /DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 13.02.2017 / O R D E R THIS APPEAL BY THE ASSESSEE IS DIRECTED AGAINST THE ORDER PASSED BY THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS)-XII, CHENNAI D ATED 19.12.2012 IN ITA NO.11/2011-12 AND IT PERTAINS TO ASSESSMENT YEAR 20 08-09. 2. THE ASSESSEE HAS RAISED FOUR GROUNDS IN HIS APPE AL AND THEY ARE REPRODUCED HEREIN BELOW FOR REFERENCE: 2.1. THE ORDER PASSED BY THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER O F INCOME TAX (APPEALS)-XII UNDER SECTION 250(6) OF INCOME-TAX AC T, 1961 DATED 2 I.T.A. NO.2379/MDS/2016 19-12-2012 IS CONTRARY TO LAW AND ERRONEOUS ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE. 2.2. THE LEARNED ASSESSING OFFICER OUGHT TO HAVE AP PRECIATED THE FACT THAT THE FORM 10 WAS FILED BY THE APPELLANT IN ORDE R TO ACCUMULATE AND SET APART THE INCOME OF THE TRUST WHILE THE ASS ESSMENT PROCEEDINGS WERE IN PROGRESS. 2.3. THE LEARNED ASSESSING OFFICER OUGHT TO HAVE AL LOWED THE ACCUMULATION U/S.11(2) AND OUGHT NOT TO HAVE DENIED THE APPELLANTS CLAIM FOR EXEMPTION. 2.4. THE LEARNED ASSESSING OFFICER OUGHT TO HAVE AP PRECIATED THE FACT THAT THE RETURN OF INCOME OF THE TRUST WAS DELAYED DUE TO REASONABLE CAUSE AND ALSO THE FACT THAT FORM NO.10 HAD BEEN FI LED BEFORE THE ASSESSMENT WAS MADE ON 19-12-2012. 3. THE BRIEF FACTS OF THE CASE ARE THERE THAT THE A SSESSEE IS A CHARITABLE INSTITUTION, FILED HIS RETURN OF INCOME FOR THE ASS ESSMENT YEAR 2008-09 ON 02.04.2009 ADMITTING NIL INCOME AFTER CLAIMING EXEM PTION U/S. 11 OF THE ACT. THE LD. AO WHILE PROCESSING THE RETURN U/S.143(1) O F THE ACT ON 21.01.2011 OBSERVED THAT THERE WAS A SHORTFALL IN APPLYING 85% OF THE INCOME FOR THE OBJECTS OF THE TRUST AND FURTHER THE ASSESSEE HAD NOT ENCLOSED THE PRESCRIBED FORM NO.10 ALONG WITH THE RETURN OF INCOME, SEEKING PERMISSION FOR ACCUMULATION OF INCOME. HENCE, THE LD. AO BROUGHT THE SHORTFALL OF THE APPLICATION OF INCOME TO TAX. ON APPEAL, THE LD. C IT ALSO CONFIRMED THE ORDER OF THE AO AGGRIEVED BY WHICH THE ASSESSEE IS NOW ON APPEAL BEFORE US. 4. AT THE OUTSET, THE LD. DR POINTED OUT THAT THERE WAS A DELAY OF 1278 DAYS IN FILING THE APPEAL BY THE ASSESSEE. WHEN QU ERIED WITH THE LD. AR, IT 3 I.T.A. NO.2379/MDS/2016 WAS SUBMITTED THAT THE TRUST HAD HANDED OVER THE AP PEAL PAPERS TO ITS AUDITOR FOR FILING THE APPEAL, AFTER A DELAY OF 3 YEARS AND 6 MONTHS. THE LD. AR COULD NOT JUSTIFY WITH ANY BONAFIDE REASONS FOR THE DELAY IN FILING THE APPEAL. THEREFORE, WE ARE OF THE CONSIDERED VIEW THAT THE A SSESSEE DOES NOT DESERVE FOR CONDONING THE DELAY IN FILING THE APPEAL. HEN CE, WE HEREBY DISMISS THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE BY NOT CONDONING THE DELAY I N FILING THE APPEAL WITHIN THE STIPULATED PERIOD UNDER THE ACT. 5. IN THE RESULT THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS DISM ISSED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE COURT ON THE 13 TH FEBRUARY, 2017. SD/- ( . ) (A. MOHAN ALANKAMONY) ! / ACCOUNTANT MEMBER $% /CHENNAI, &' /DATED 13 TH FEBRUARY, 2017 JR. ' )* +* /COPY TO: 1. APPELLANT 2. RESPONDENT 3. , ( )/CIT(A) 4. , /CIT 5. *-. / /DR 6. .0 /GF.