SHREE MOMAY EDUCATION AND CHARITABLE TRUST, MANDVI V. DCIT (CPC, BENGALURU

ITA 300/RJT/2023

• Counselvise Citation: [2024] 100 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 2094 (ITAT-RAJKOT)
• Duration Of Justice: 9 month(s) 5 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 28-05-2024
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: DB
• Next Hearing Date: 14-05-2024
• Assessment Year: 2017-2018
• Appeal Filed On: 22-08-2023
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: ASHISH KUMAR PANDEY
• Keywords: Charitable institution; Period of limitation; Reasonable cause; Time period of passing order; Condonation of delay
• Section: 139; 12A; 10B; 143(1); 250; 139(1); 139(4); 153; 119

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, RAJKOT BENCH, RAJKOT BEFORE DR. ARJUN LAL SAINI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI DINESH MOHAN SINHA, JUDICIAL MEMBER आयकर अपील सं./ITA No. 300/RJT/2023 (Assessment Year: 2017-18) (Hybrid Hearing) Shree Momay Education and Charitable Trust, Plot No.28/29, Gala Nagar, Mandvi, Gujarat-370465 Vs. The DCIT (CPC), Bengaluru थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./PAN/GIR No.: AAQTS5624L (अपीलाथ /Assessee) ( यथ /Respondent) नधा रतीक ओरसे / Assessee by : Shri D.M. Rindani, AR राज वक ओरसे/Revenue by : Shri Ashish Kumar Pandey, Sr. DR स ु नवाई क तार ख/ Date of Hearing : 15/05/2024 घोषणा क तार ख/Date of Pronouncement : 29/05/2024 आदेश/ORDER PER DR. A. L. SAINI, AM: Captioned appeal filed by the Assessee-trust, is directed against the order passed by the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), vide order dated 20 th April, 2023, which in turn arises out of an intimation under section 143(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, dated 29 th March, 2019. 2. The Grounds of appeal raised by the assessee are as follows: “1 The Learned Commissioner (Appeals), NFAC, Delhi erred in not admitting the appeal of this Assessee in limine by failing to appreciate that the I.T.A No. 300/Rjt/2023 A.Y. 2017-18 Shree Momay Education and Charitable Trust vs. DCIT(CPC), Bengaluru 2 Assessee had reasonable cause for delay of 929 days in filing the appeal before Commissioner (Appeals). 2. The Learned Commissioner (Appeals), NFAC, Delhi erred in not adjudicating the appeal on merits and thus failed to appreciate that benefit of Section 11 of Rs. 45,76,292/- could not have been denied by CPC u/s 143(l)(a) of the Act.” 3. The appeal filed by the assessee-trust, before this Tribunal, is barred by limitation by 65 days. The assessee moved a petition requesting the Bench to condone the delay in filing the appeal. The contents of the petition for condonation of delay are reproduced as under: “With reference to the captioned matter, the Assessee most respectfully states that it is a public charitable trust, registered u/s 12A of the Act which is formed for the purpose of providing educational facilities by running a school. The present appeal has been filed belated by 65 days. The order u/s 250 was received on 20- 04-2023 on e-mail id of settlor, Shri Chintan Sudhirbhai Joshi, due date of appeal filing was 19-06-2023, while it was filed on 22-08-2023. In this regard, the Assessee prays that the said delay may kindly be condoned as there were good and sufficient causes for the said delay. 1. That Mr. Chintan Joshi is the Settlor and Trustee of the Applicant-trust, since inception and he is in charge of overall functioning, school administration and legal matters of the trust; 2. That Mr. Chintan Joshi resides in Mandvi, Kachchh and the registered office of the trust is also in Mandvi. The school which is run by the Assessee-trust is in Mundra which is 50 kms away from Mandvi, Kachchh. He had undergone a total hip replacement in the year 2020. 3. That since around March, 2023, Mr. Chintan Joshi was not attending to the office of trust because of severe pain in hip due to which he was unable to walk. On 05-05-2023, he consulted an orthopaedic surgeon in Ahmedabad for the medical condition. Prescription of the Doctor is attached herewith (Page 4) 4. That thereafter, on 15-05-2023, he was admitted to a hospital and on 16-05- 2023, he underwent a surgery for implant removal and insertion of antibiotic cement mold spacer; he was discharged from hospital on 19-05-2023. Operation note and discharge summary received from Hospital are attached herewith (Page-5-10) I.T.A No. 300/Rjt/2023 A.Y. 2017-18 Shree Momay Education and Charitable Trust vs. DCIT(CPC), Bengaluru 3 5. That thereafter, he was advised to recuperate at home and he was thus home- bound and was advised to rest. That thereafter, he did not recover and hence was required to be re-operated on 07-11-2023. Certificate from Doctor is attached herewith (Page 11 ). 6. In the meanwhile, between the first and second surgeries, since Mr. Chintan Joshi was unable to attend to the trust-office, the office assistant of the trust got the appeal papers and required documents signed from him by visiting his home and thereafter the present appeal was filed on 22-08-2023. 7. Other affairs pertaining to administration of school were handed over to other persons while Mr. Chintan was not attending the trust-office. 8. The trust was formed on 08-01-2016 and this was the first year of commencement of trust activities and of filing of return of income and that of audit report in Form 10B. 9. In nutshell, the reasons for the delay may be summed up as under: (i) On the date of receipt of order u/s 250 of the Act on 20-04-2023, the Managing Trustee of the Trust was not able to attend trust office due to severe pain in hip and not being able to walk because the trust-office was 50 kms away from trustee's residence. (ii) The said Managing Trustee underwent two surgeries and was advised to rest till the operation wound was completely healed. (iii) Appeal papers and related documents could be signed only when the office assistant of the trust visited managing trustee's home.” 4. Shri D.M. Rindani, Learned Counsel for the assessee, contended that assessee has explained the sufficient cause, in the petition for condonation of delay, as stated above, therefore, the delay in filing the appeal may be condoned. 5. On the other hand, Learned DR for the Revenue, argued that in addition of delay before this Tribunal, assessee made the delay in filing the appeal before Ld. CIT(A) also, further there is delay in filing appeal in subsequent year also, hence it is a recurring issue in the assessee’s case I.T.A No. 300/Rjt/2023 A.Y. 2017-18 Shree Momay Education and Charitable Trust vs. DCIT(CPC), Bengaluru 4 under consideration, therefore, delay should not be condoned, as the conduct of the assessee clearly states that assessee was negligent. Besides, the reasons explained in the petition for condonation of delay are not sufficient reasons, therefore delay may not be condoned and appeal of the assessee may be dismissed. 6. We have heard both the parties on this preliminary issue and noted that on the date of receipt of order of ld. CIT(A), on 20 th April, 2023, the managing trustee of the trust was not able to attend office due to severe pain and disease hence not being able to walk. The said managing trustee underwent to surgery and was advised by the doctors to take rest. We have examined the medical documents and evidences submitted by ld Counsel before this Bench. Hence, we find that assessee was suffering from a long disease and was not able to attend office. Having heard both the parties and after having gone through the affidavit as well the delay condonation, application, we are of the considered opinion that in the interest of justice, the delay deserves to be condoned. We, accordingly, condone the delay in filing appeal before this Tribunal and admit the assessee`s appeal for hearing. 7. Ground No.1 raised by the assessee before this Tribunal relates to delay in filing the appeal before Commissioner (Appeals) for 929 days. 8. Shri D.M. Rindani, Ld. Counsel for the assessee, argued that Learned Commissioner (Appeals), erred in not admitting the appeal of the assessee and failed to appreciate that the assessee had reasonable cause for delay of I.T.A No. 300/Rjt/2023 A.Y. 2017-18 Shree Momay Education and Charitable Trust vs. DCIT(CPC), Bengaluru 5 929 days in filing the appeal before Commissioner (Appeals), inspite of sufficient cause, the Ld. CIT(A) did not condone delay, and dismissed the appeal of the assessee on this score only. The assessee has filed the petition of condonation of delay and explained the reasonable and sufficient cause in respect of the said delay. The Ld Counsel for the assessee, took us through the petition for condonation of delay, in filing the appeal, before the Ld CIT(A), the contents of the said petition ( to the extent useful for our analysis) are reproduced below: “With reference to the captioned matter, the Appellant most respectfully state that it is a public charitable trust registered u/s 12A of the Act which is formed for the purpose of providing educational facilities by running a school. It is registered u/s 12A which is in force. It is respectfully prayed: (i) That the impugned order in-appeal dated 29-03-2019, passed by the CPC, Bengaluru u/s 143(1) of the Act was received on 29-03-2019. The Appellant-trust understands that the due date under the Income-tax Act, 1961 to file first appeal against the said order before Commissioner (Appeals) would have been dated 28- 04-2019 but the appeal has been filed by it on 13-11-2021; thus, resulting in a delay of 929 days. That as a result of the above, further proceedings took place with following sequence and facts: A. Intimation dated 29-03-2019 was checked by the office assistant of Appellant's Tax Consultant and thereafter he/she misplaced the said intimation and could forward it to the Tax Consultant of the Appellant-trust around sometime in June, 2020. Affidavit of the office assistant is attached herewith (Page 1-2); B. Thereafter, said intimation was perused by Appellant's Tax Consultant and he had advised the Appellant to file rectification request online against said intimation u/s 143(1) dated 26-09-2019. Thereafter, rectification application was filed online by the Appellant-trust on 19-06-2020. The said rectification request was rejected on 14-07-2020 by the CPC. C. Thereafter, the Appellant-trust had filed second rectification application online on 28-07-2020 which was rejected by CPC on 31-07-2020.Date timeline appearing on e-filing portal is attached herewith (Page 3 ). I.T.A No. 300/Rjt/2023 A.Y. 2017-18 Shree Momay Education and Charitable Trust vs. DCIT(CPC), Bengaluru 6 D. Thereafter, the Appellant-trust decided to take advise from Tax Practitioner in Rajkot for further course of action. e. Thereafter, the Appellant-trust was advised to file appeal before Commissioner (Appeals) against impugned intimation u/s 143(1) by the Tax Practitioner in Rajkot. f. Thereafter, due to ongoing Covid-19 during that period, it took some time to prepare and send appeal papers, challan of appeal fees and appeal documents to the tax practitioner in Rajkot and then the appeal was filed on 13-11-2021. g. It may be submitted that during the period 15-03-2020 to 12-11-2020, Covid-19 Pandemic was going on and Supreme Court had vide its order dated 10-01-2022 had extended limitation period for filing appeal to 30-05-2022 due to Covid-19 Pandemic for limitation period expiring between 15-03-2020 to 28-02- 2022(copy enclosed). h. In the aforesaid SC Order, vide Para 5 (III) thereof, it was mentioned that limitation period expiring between 15-03-2020 to 28-02-2022, was given time of 90 days from 01-03-2022 i.e. 30- 05-2022 for filing of appeal. Said para is reproduced hereunder for your reference. "III. In cases where the limitation would have expired during the period between 15.03.2020 till 28.02.2022, notwithstanding the actual balance period of limitation remaining, all persons shall have a limitation period of 90 days from 01.03.2022. In the event the actual balance period of limitation remaining, with effect from 01.03.2022 is greater than 90 days, that longer period shall apply". (ii) Further also, the Appellant has been continuously pursuing an alternative remedy of filing rectification applications online, but the same are being rejected by CPC, which is beyond assesse's control. (iii) That the Appellant is a charitable trust in whose case, legitimate and permissible deduction u/s 11 was claimed by it, but it is disallowed by way of an intimation u/s 143(1) and otherwise its total income is not taxable; that it pursued a legal and alternate remedy under bona fide belief and legal advice with no intentional latches and with no inaction on its part or on the part of its tax practitioner and by following one of the legal courses thought to be proper and permissible in law. (iv) Hence, there is a reasonable cause for delay in filing of appeal. Further, the Appellant is also covered by the aforesaid decision of Supreme Court dated 10-01-2022 and hence delay in filing the appeal from 15-03-2020 till 13-11-2021 i.e. 577 days would have to be excluded from total delay of 929 days and hence in effect there is delay of 352 days in filing the appeal for which there is a I.T.A No. 300/Rjt/2023 A.Y. 2017-18 Shree Momay Education and Charitable Trust vs. DCIT(CPC), Bengaluru 7 reasonable cause and affidavit of the office assistant of the Tax Consultant is enclosed in support thereof. (v) Sec. 249(3) empowers your learned self to condone delay and to admit belated appeal. In opinion of Appellant, the disallowance u/s 11 is not within scope of Sec. 143(1)(a). If at all, the Dept. could have examined the issue u/s 143(2).........” 9. The Ld. Counsel submitted that above petition for condonation of delay was filed by the assessee, before the ld CIT(A) and explained a reasonable cause for delay in filing of appeal. Further, the assessee is also covered by the aforesaid decision of Supreme Court dated 10-01-2022 (mentioned in petition) and hence delay in filing the appeal from 15-03-2020 till 13-11-2021 i.e. 577 days would have to be excluded from total delay of 929 days and therefore in effect there is delay of 352 days in filing the appeal before ld CIT(A), for which there is a reasonable cause and affidavit of the office assistant of the Tax Consultant was also filed before ld CIT(A). The sufficient cause for delay had been explained by the assessee in the petition for condonation of delay, as reproduced above. Therefore, Ld. Counsel prayed the Bench that in the interest of justice, the delay may be condoned. 10. On the other hand, Ld. DR for the Revenue submitted that such huge delay in filing the appeal before Ld. CIT(A) should not be condoned. Besides, the effective delay in filing appeal before Ld. CIT(A) of 352 days was before the Covid-19 pandemic disease for which no sufficient reasons were explained by the assessee. The ld DR further pointed out that there was similar delay in the case of filing of appeal for assessment year 2018–19 and the same reason for delay has been given for assessment year 2018-19 I.T.A No. 300/Rjt/2023 A.Y. 2017-18 Shree Momay Education and Charitable Trust vs. DCIT(CPC), Bengaluru 8 also. Hence, it is routine and kind of a regular habitual delay, which should not be condoned. Apart from this, the assessee failed to explain the sufficient cause, before Ld. CIT(A) to condone such huge delay. Hence, such huge delay should not be condoned on the flimsy reasons, as stated in the petition for condonation of delay and hence appeal of the assessee may be dismissed. 11. We have heard both the parties. We note that assessing officer passed the intimation order under section 143(1) of the Act, on 29 th March, 2019, the assessee has filed the appeal before Learned CIT(A), on 30.11. 2021, hence there is a delay of 929 days in filing the appeal before ld CIT(A). We note that out of 929 days, the 577 days of delay, in filing the appeal before the CIT(A), is covered by the Covid -19 pandemic period, hence, real delay of filing the appeal before Ld. CIT(A) was only 352 days (929-577). For such effective delay of 352 days, the assessee has explained the sufficient cause in the above petition for condonation of delay, filed before Ld.CIT(A), however, Ld. CIT(A) did not condone the delay.We note that Covid-19 pandemic started w.e.f. 15.03.2020, therefore, the effective delay, as per assessee, before Covid-19 pandemic, is 352 days, and balance delay of 577 days is covered by Covid-19 pandemic. Such 577 days of delay is covered by the judgement of the Hon`ble Supreme Court, in the case of SUO MOTU WRIT PETITION (C) NO. 3 OF 2020, vide order January 10, 2022, wherein, the Hon`ble Supreme Court, held as follows: “5. Taking into consideration the arguments advanced by learned counsel and the impact of the surge of the virus on public health and adversities faced by litigants in the prevailing conditions, we deem it appropriate to dispose of the M.A. No. 21 of 2022 with the following directions: I.T.A No. 300/Rjt/2023 A.Y. 2017-18 Shree Momay Education and Charitable Trust vs. DCIT(CPC), Bengaluru 9 I. The order dated 23.03.2020 is restored and in continuation of the subsequent orders dated 08.03.2021, 27.04.2021 and 23.09.2021, it is directed that the period from 15.03.2020 till 28.02.2022 shall stand excluded for the purposes of limitation as may be prescribed under any general or special laws in respect of all judicial or quasi judicial proceedings. II. Consequently, the balance period of limitation remaining as on 03.10.2021, if any, shall become available with effect from 01.03.2022. III. In cases where the limitation would have expired during the period between 15.03.2020 till 28.02.2022, notwithstanding the actual balance period of limitation remaining, all persons shall have a limitation period of 90 days from 01.03.2022. In the event the actual balance period of limitation remaining, with effect from 01.03.2022 is greater than 90 days, that longer period shall apply. IV. It is further clarified that the period from 15.03.2020 till 28.02.2022 shall also stand excluded in computing the periods prescribed under Sections 23 (4) and 29A of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, Section 12A of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015 and provisos (b) and (c) of Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 and any other laws, which prescribe period(s) of limitation for instituting proceedings, outer limits (within which the court or tribunal can condone delay) and termination of proceedings.” 12. Respectfully, following the above binding precedent, of Hon`ble Supreme Court in suo motu writ petition (supra), we condone the delay of 577 days. 13. About balance delay of 352 days, which is effective delay, which occurred prior to Covid -19 pandemic and for that the assessee has submitted the sufficient cause by way of filing petition for condonation of delay before Ld.CIT(A). We note that against the intimation under section 143(1) assessee filed rectification request online dated 26-09-2019. Thereafter, rectification application was filed online by the Appellant-trust on 19-06- 2020. The said rectification request was rejected on 14-07-2020 by the CPC. Therefore, we find that assessee was continuously pursuing an alternative I.T.A No. 300/Rjt/2023 A.Y. 2017-18 Shree Momay Education and Charitable Trust vs. DCIT(CPC), Bengaluru 10 remedy of filing rectification applications online, but the same were being rejected by CPC-Banglore. We find that this is the sufficient cause for such delay. We also find that during the proceedings, before ld CIT(A), the assessee has relied on the following judgements: “(i) The word 'sufficient cause' should receive liberal construction as to advance substantial justice (vide Sandhya Ravi Sarkar AIR 1978 SC 537, 542). (ii) Where no negligence or inaction is imputed to an appellant it can be sufficient cause and liberal construction be adopted (Shakuntala vs Kuntal Kumar AIR 1969 SC 575). (iii) Where the assessee filed an appeal with an application for condonation of delay on the ground that he was prosecuting other remedies and, therefore, the time taken for prosecuting such other remedies should be taken into consideration for condonation of delay, it was held that the condonation of delay and consequent entertaining of the appeal was justified - CIT vs K. S. P. Shanmugavel Nadar (1985) 153 ITR 596 (Mad), Bhansali vs. State of Madras (1968) 21 STC 411 (Mad) and Chamba Ram Mulakh Raj vs State of Haryana (1983) 54 CTC 215 (Punj). (iv) The Rajkot Tribunal in case of Siddhi Vinayak Education Trust in ITA Nos. 136 & 97/Rjt/2020 for A.Y. 2012-13 wherein, there was delay of 1520 days in filing of appeal before the Tribunal as the said trust was pursuing alternative remedy of filing rectification application against the order of Commissioner (Appeals). The Tribunal after considering contentions of the said trust had condoned the delay in filing the appeal and set aside the matter to the CIT(A) for considering the issue on merits.” 14. We note that there is sufficient cause for delay in filing this appeal, as narrated above. Further, the part delay is also covered by the aforesaid decision of Supreme Court dated 10-01-2022 (supra) and hence delay in filing the appeal from 15-03-2020 till 13-11-2021 i.e. 577 days would have to be excluded from total delay of 929 days and hence in effect there is delay of 352 days in filing this appeal for which assessee has explained reasonable I.T.A No. 300/Rjt/2023 A.Y. 2017-18 Shree Momay Education and Charitable Trust vs. DCIT(CPC), Bengaluru 11 cause in its petition for condonation of delay, therefore, we also condone the balance delay of 352 days. 15. From the above facts, as narrated before us, we note that there is delay in filing appeal before this Tribunal, and there is huge delay in filing appeal before CIT(A) and as per Ld. DR there is delay in filing appeal in subsequent year i.e. A.Y. 2018-19; in spite of this, we find that assessee has explained sufficient cause, as noted in petition for condonation of delay. Therefore, in view of above facts and case law relied upon by the assessee, we find that since the aforesaid reasons, explained by the ld Counsel for the assessee, constitute sufficient/reasonable cause for the delay in fling the appeal, before ld CIT(A), therefore, we condone the delay of 929 days and admit the assessee`s appeal for adjudication on merit. 16. We have condoned the delay, considering the peculiar facts of the assessee`s case, therefore our instant adjudication, on condonation of delay, shall not be treated as a precedent in any preceding or succeeding assessment year. 17. On merit, Shri D.M. Rindani, Learned Counsel for the assessee, pleaded that CPC Bangalore (Assessing Officer) in the intimation u/s 143(1) of the Act, dated 29.03.2019, did not condone the delay in filing Form 10B for assessment year 2017-18 and made the addition to the tune of Rs.45,76,292/-, that is, the benefit of Section 11 of the Act at Rs. 45,76,292/- have been denied by CPC (AO) under section 143(l)(a) of the Act. The ld Counsel stated that as per CBDT Circular No. 10/2019, dated 22.05.2019, I.T.A No. 300/Rjt/2023 A.Y. 2017-18 Shree Momay Education and Charitable Trust vs. DCIT(CPC), Bengaluru 12 the delay in filing Form No.10B for assessment years 2016-17 and 2017-18, has been condoned by the CBDT, therefore, CPC (AO) should not have denied the benefit of Section 11 of the Act, at Rs. 45,76,292/-.The Ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted before the Bench, a chart showing the dates and facts, which is reproduced below: “Relevant dates are as under Event Date Due date of filling return of income u/s 139(1) 07-11-2017 Due date of filling return of income u/s 139(4) 31-03-2018 Audit report in Form 10B filed by the Assessee 28-03-2018 Return of Income filed by the Assessee for the year 29-03-2018 Intimation u/s 143(1) 29-03-2019 CBDT Circular no. 10/2019 22-05-2019 As per Para no 4(i) of CBDT Circular no. 10/2019 dated 22-05-2019, delay in filing form 10B for AY 2017-18 is condoned if the audit report for the year is obtained before the filling of return of income and has been furnished subsequent to filling of return of income but before the date specified u/s 139 of the Act. In case of Assessee, audit report in Form 10B was obtained on 28-03-2015, i.e. before filling of return of income and was filed also on 28-03-2018 and thereafter the return of income was filed on 29-03-2018, thus both were filed before the extension granted by the Circular.” 18. Based on the above facts, the learned counsel for the assessee contended that addition made by the assessing officer (CPC) may be deleted. 19. On the other hands, Ld. DR for the Revenue argued that the eligibility of assessee to take the benefit of Section 11 of the Act, in respect of the amount to the tune of Rs. 45,76,292/-, should be examined by the assessing I.T.A No. 300/Rjt/2023 A.Y. 2017-18 Shree Momay Education and Charitable Trust vs. DCIT(CPC), Bengaluru 13 officer, as the assessee made the delay in filing the appeal before Ld CIT(A), as well as before this Tribunal and also made delay in filing the appeal in subsequent year. Therefore, in these circumstances, the delay in filing Form No. 10B for assessment year 2017-18 and issue on merit should be examined by the assessing officer, as there is no adjudication on merit so far benefit of Section 11 of the Act is concerned. 20. We have heard both the parties and carefully gone through the submission put forth on behalf of the assessee along with the documents furnished and the case laws relied upon, and perused the fact of the case including the findings of the ld CIT(A) and other materials brought on record. We note that the CBDT, vide its circular number 10/2019, dated 22.05.2019 has condoned the delay in filing Form number 10B, for assessment year 2017-18, the important para of the said circular is reproduced: “4. Accordingly, in supersession of earlier circular/ instruction issued in this regard, and with a view to expedite the disposal of applications filed by such trust or institutions for condoning the delay in filing form no. 10B and in exercise of the powers conferred under section 119 (2) of the Act, the Central Board of Direct Taxes hereby directs that: (i) The delay in filing of Form No. 10B for A.Y. 2016-17 and A.Y.2017-18, in all such cases where the Audit Report for the previous year has been obtained before the filing of return of income and has been furnished subsequent to the filing of the return of income but before the date specified under section 139 of the Act is condoned.” 21. In the light of the CBDT Circular No. 10 (supra) and sequence of dates and facts, as narrated above by ld Counsel, we direct the assessing officer to examine the conditions stated in the Board Circular and to I.T.A No. 300/Rjt/2023 A.Y. 2017-18 Shree Momay Education and Charitable Trust vs. DCIT(CPC), Bengaluru 14 ascertain whether conditions are satisfied and then examine the eligibility of benefit of Section 11 of the Act, in respect of the amount to the tune of Rs. 45,76,292/-, and adjudicate the issue in accordance with law. The assessee is also directed to summit the relevant documents and evidences, if any, required by the assessing officer. Therefore, without delving much deeper into the merits of the case, in the interest of justice, we restore the matter back to the file of assessing officer for de novo adjudication and pass a speaking order after affording sufficient opportunity of being heard to the assessee, who in turn, is also directed to contest his stand forthwith. 22. In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes in above terms. Order pronounced in the open court on 29-05-2024 Sd/- Sd/- (DINESH MOHAN SINHA) (Dr. A.L. SAINI) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Rajkot Dated: 29/05/2024 True Copy आदेश क त ल प अ े षत / Copy of Order Forwarded to:- 1. Assessee 2. Revenue 3. Concerned CIT 4. CIT (A) 5. DR, ITAT, Rajkot 6. Guard file. By order/आदेश से, Assistant Registrar/Sr.PS/PS ITAT, Rajkot