Udupi Sri Admar Mutt Education Council, Bangalore V. Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax, Exemptions, Circle-1, Bangalore

ITA 714/BANG/2020

• Counselvise Citation: [2021] 107 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 4560 (ITAT-BANGALORE)
• Duration Of Justice: 10 month(s) 5 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 29-09-2021
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: B
• Next Hearing Date: 07-09-2021
• Assessment Year: 2012-2013
• Appeal Filed On: 23-11-2020
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Assessee Lawyers: S RAMASUBRAMANYAM
• Keywords: Opportunity of being heard; Condonation of delay; Ignorance of law
• Section: 143(3); 73

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL B BENCH : BANGALORE BEFORE SHRI CHANDRA POOJARI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SMT. BEENA PILLAI, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA NOS.714 TO 717/BANG/2020 ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2012-13, 2014-15, 2015-16 & 2016-17 UDUPI SRI ADMAR MUTT EDUCATION COUNCIL, NO.4, SADASHIVANAGAR, BENGALURU-560 080. PAN AAATA 9618 E VS. THE ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX EXEMPTIONS-1, BENGALURU. APPELLANT RESPONDENT ASSESSEE BY : SHRI S RAMASUBRAMANYAM, C.A REVENUE BY : SHRI MUZAFFAR HUSSAIN, CIT(DR) SHRI PRIYADARSHI MISHRA, ADDL.CIT(DR) DATE OF HEARING : 07-09-2021 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 29-09-2021 ORDER PER BEENA PILLAI, JUDICIAL MEMBER PRESENT APPEALS HAVE BEEN FILED BY ASSESSEE AGAINST ORDER DATED 16/09/2020 PASSED BY THE LD.CIT(A)-14. 2. AT THE OUTSET THE LD. COUNSEL SUBMITTED THAT ASS ESSEE HAD FILED APPEAL BEFORE THE LD.ACIT(A) FOR THE YEARS UN DER CONSIDERATION WITH DELAY, THE DETAILS OF WHICH ARE AS UNDER: PAGE 2 OF 6 ITA NO.714-717/BANG/2020 2.1 HE SUBMITTED THAT THOUGH THE ASSESSMENT ORDER W AS RECEIVED BY ASSESSEE IN TIME, IT DID NOT FILE ANY A PPEAL AGAINST ORDERS PASSED UNDER SECTION 143(3) OF THE ACT, SINC E THE TOTAL INCOME DETERMINED BY THE LD.AO WAS NIL, AND THERE WAS NO TAX LIABILITY. 2.2 HOWEVER WHILE FRAMING ASSESSMENT FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2017-18, ASSESSEE CLAIMED ACCUMULATION UNDER SECTIO N 11(2) OF THE ACT, WHICH WAS DISALLOWED BY THE LD.AO. 2.3 THE LD.AR SUBMITTED THAT, EXCESS APPLICATION I N THE EARLIER YEARS WAS NOT ALLOWED TO BE CARRIED FORWARDED, AND SET OFF AGAINST THE INCOME FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2017-18 BY THE LD.AO UNDER SECTION 11(2) OF THE ACT. IT WAS UNDER THIS BACKGRO UND THAT THE ASSESSEE FILED APPEALS AGAINST THE ASSESSMENT ORDER S PASSED FOR THE PRECEDING ASSESSMENT YEARS BELATEDLY, BEFORE TH E LD.CIT(A). THE LD.CIT(A) DID NOT CONDONE THE DELAY. 2.4 IT IS SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSEE WAS UNDER BON A FIDE BELIEF AT THE INSTRUCTION OF THE AUTHORISED REPRESENTATIVE WHO HANDLED THE APPEALS THAT APPEAL NEED NOT BE FILED IN THE PR ECEDING ASSESSMENT YEARS AS THE INCOME ASSESSED WAS NIL. 2.5 HE THUS SUBMITTED THAT IN THE INTEREST OF NATUR AL JUSTICE AND CONSIDERING THE BONA FIDE ACT OF THE ASSESSEE I N ABIDING BY PAGE 3 OF 6 ITA NO.714-717/BANG/2020 THE ADVICE FROM THE THEN REPRESENTATIVE, THE APPEAL S MAY BE DIRECTED TO BE HEARD ON MERITS. 3. ON THE CONTRARY THE LD.CIT.DR SUBMITTED THAT THE DELAY WAS NOT CONDONED BY THE LD.CIT(A) AS ASSESSEE HAD NOT S ATISFACTORILY EXPLAINED THE REASON FOR FILING THE APPEAL BEFORE T HE LD.CIT(A) IN PROPER MANNER. HE PLACED RELIANCE ON THE DECISION O F ITAT COCHIN BENCH IN CASE OF CATHOLIC SYRIAN BANK REPORTED IN 1 73 ITD 384. 3.1 HOWEVER, HE SUGGESTED THAT, THE DOCUMENTS FILED BY ASSESSEE BEFORE THIS BENCH BEING ADDITIONAL EVIDENC ES MAY BE REMANDED TO THE LD. CIT (A) FOR VERIFICATION. 4. IN THE COUNTER REPLY LD.AR SUBMITTED THAT, THE A UTHORISED REPRESENTATIVE SHRI PN MAIYA, C.A [M.NO.015003]WHO ADVISED ASSESSEE AGAINST FILING APPEALS BEFORE THE LD.CIT(A ) HAS FILED LETTER DATED 1/9/2021 EXPRESSING THE SAME. IT WAS A LSO SUBMITTED THAT THE LD.AUTHORISED REPRESENTATIVE IS WILLING TO FILE AN AFFIDAVIT TO THAT EFFECT WHICH CAN BE SUBJECTED TO VERIFICATI ON. 5. WE HAVE PERUSED SUBMISSIONS ADVANCED BY BOTH SID ES IN LIGHT OF RECORDS PLACED BEFORE US. 5.1 WE NOTE THAT HONBLE COCHIN BENCH OF THIS TRIBU NAL IN CASE OF CATHOLIC SYRIAN BANK (SUPRA) REJECTED APPLICATIO N FOR CONDONATION OF DELAY SINCE ASSESSEE FAILED TO EXPLA IN THE REASON THAT CAUSED DELAY, BY SUFFICIENT EVIDENCES/DOCUMENT ATION. ASSESSEE THEREIN FAILED TO ESTABLISH BONA FIDE TH AT CAUSED DELAY IN FILING THE APPEALS. 5.2 HOWEVER IN THE PRESENT FACTS OF THE CASE THE LD .AR PLACED ON RECORD LETTER FILED BY THE THEN LD.AUTHORISED R EPRESENTATIVE PAGE 4 OF 6 ITA NO.714-717/BANG/2020 WHO ADVISED ASSESSEE. ASSESSEE WAS NOT AT FAULT IN NOT FILING THE APPEAL IS AGAINST THE ORDERS PASSED BY LD.AO UNDER SECTION 143(3) UNDER SUCH CIRCUMSTANCES. AT THIS JUNCTURE W E ARE ALSO AWARE OF THE PRINCIPLE THAT IGNORANCE OF LAW CANNOT BE AN EXCUSE. HOWEVER AN IMPACT OF A PARTICULAR VIEW BY THE AUTHO RISED REPRESENTATIVE COULD NOT BE FORESEEN BY ASSESSEE AT THAT PARTICULAR POINT AND THEREBY ABIDED BY THE ADVICE. FOR FAULT OF THE LD.AUTHORISED REPRESENTATIVE, ASSESSEE CANNOT BE PU T INTO DIFFICULTY. 5.3 WE PLACE RELIANCE ON FOLLOWING OBSERVATIONS BY HONBLE SUPREME COURT IN CASE OF COLLECTOR LAND ACQUISITION VS. MST. KATIJI & ORS. REPORTED IN (1987) 167 ITR 471 WHEREI N, HONBLE COURT OBSERVED AS UNDER:- THE LEGISLATURE HAS CONFERRED THE POWER TO CONDONE DELAY BY ENACTING SECTION 51 OF THE LIMITATION ACT OF 1963 IN ORDER T O ENABLE THE COURTS TO DO SUBSTANTIAL JUSTICE TO PARTIES BY DISPOSING OF MATT ERS ON DE MERITS '. THE EXPRESSION SUFFICIENT CAUSE EMPLOYED BY THE LEG ISLATURE IS ADEQUATELY ELASTIC TO ENABLE THE COURTS TO APPLY THE LAW IN A MEANINGFUL MANNER WHICH SUBSERVES THE ENDS OF JUSTICE THAT BEING THE LIFE-PURPOSE OF THE EXISTENCE OF THE INSTITUTION OF COURTS. IT IS COMMO N KNOWLEDGE THAT THIS COURT HAS BEEN MAKING A JUSTIFIABLY LIBERAL APPROAC H IN MATTERS INSTITUTED IN THIS COURT. BUT THE MESSAGE DOES NOT APPEAR TO H AVE PERCOLATED DOWN TO ALL THE OTHER COURTS IN THE HIERARCHY. AND SUCH A LIBERAL APPROACH IS ADOPTED ON PRINCIPLE AS IT IS REALIZED THAT : 1. ORDINARILY, A LITIGANT DOES NOT STAND TO BENEFIT BY LODGING AN APPEAL LATE. 2. REFUSING TO CONDONE DELAY CAN RESULT IN A MERITO RIOUS MATTER BEING THROWN OUT AT THE VERY THRESHOLD AND CAUSE OF JUSTI CE BEING DEFEATED. AS AGAINST THIS, WHEN DELAY IS CONDONED, THE HIGHEST T HAT CAN HAPPEN IS THAT A CAUSE WOULD BE DECIDED ON MERITS AFTER HEARI NG THE PARTIES. ................................................... ...1.ANY APPEAL OR ANY APPLICATION, OTHER THAN AN APPLICATION UNDER ANY OF THE PROVISIONS OF ORDER XXI OF THE CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE, 1908, MAY BE ADMITTED AFTER THE PRESCRIBED PERIOD IF THE APPELLANT OR THE APPLICANT SATISFIES THE COURT THAT HE HAD SUFFICIENT PAGE 5 OF 6 ITA NO.714-717/BANG/2020 CAUSE FOR NOT PREFERRING THE APPEAL OR MAKING THE A PPLICATION WITHIN SUCH PERIOD. 5.4 CONSIDERING THE SUBMISSIONS BY BOTH SIDES AND RESPECTFULLY FOLLOWING THE OBSERVATION BY HONBLE SUPREME COURT, WE FIND IT FIT TO REMAND THESE APPEALS TO THE LD.CIT(A). THE LD.CI T(A) SHALL VERIFY THE STATEMENTS AND THE AFFIDAVITS GIVEN BY T HE AUTHORISED REPRESENTATIVE OF ASSESSEE IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW. WE ALSO DIRECT THAT IN THE EVENT THE BONA FIDES OF THE ASSESSEE ST ANDS EXPLAINED, THE DELAY HAS TO BE CONDONED AND APPEAL MUST BE HEA RD ON MERITS IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW. NEEDLESS TO SAY THAT PROPER OPPORTUNITY OF BEING HEARD MUST BE GRANTED TO ASSES SEE IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW. IN THE RESULT THE APPEALS FILED BY ASSESSEE STANDS ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 29 TH SEPT, 2021 SD/- SD/- (CHANDRA POOJARI) (BEENA PILLAI) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMB ER BANGALORE, DATED, THE 29 TH SEPT, 2021. /VMS/ COPY TO: 1. APPELLANT 2. RESPONDENT 3. CIT 4. CIT(A) 5. DR, ITAT, BANGALORE 6. GUARD FILE BY ORDER ASSISTANT REGISTRAR, ITAT, BANGALORE PAGE 6 OF 6 ITA NO.714-717/BANG/2020 DATE INITI AL 1. DRAFT DICTATED ON ON DRAGON SR.PS 2. DRAFT PLACED BEFORE AUTHOR -9-2021 SR.PS 3. DRAFT PROPOSED & PLACED BEFORE THE SECOND MEMBER -9-2021 JM/AM 4. DRAFT DISCUSSED/APPROVED BY SECOND MEMBER. -9-2021 JM/AM 5. APPROVED DRAFT COMES TO THE SR.PS/PS -9-2021 SR.PS/PS 6. KEPT FOR PRONOUNCEMENT ON -9-2021 SR.PS 7. DATE OF UPLOADING THE ORDER ON WEBSITE -9-2021 SR.PS 8. IF NOT UPLOADED, FURNISH THE REASON -- SR.PS 9. FILE SENT TO THE BENCH CLERK -9-2021 SR.PS 10. DATE ON WHICH FILE GOES TO THE AR 11. DATE ON WHICH FILE GOES TO THE HEAD CLERK. 12. DATE OF DISPATCH OF ORDER. 13. DRAFT DICTATION SHEETS ARE ATTACHED NO SR.PS