JAIN SHIKSHA VIKASH SAMITI ,SULTANPUR V. INCOME TAX OFFICER (EXEMPTION), LUCKNOW

ITA 49/ALLD/2025

AI Insights

The case involves Jan Shiksha Vikash Samiti, an Association of Persons (AOP), which did not file an income tax return for the assessment year 2011-12. The Income Tax Officer (Exemption), Lucknow, noticed cash deposits amounting to Rs. 17,79,226 in the assessee's savings bank account and issued a notice for verification. The assessee failed to respond, leading to an ex-parte assessment order under sections 144/147 of the Income Tax Act, assessing the total income at Rs. 17,79,226. The assessee's subsequent appeal to the CIT(A) was dismissed on grounds of limitation, despite a request for condonation of delay due to medical reasons. The Tribunal found that the assessee had sufficient cause for the delay and that the CIT(A) should have considered the appeal on merits.

• Counselvise Citation: [2025] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 398347 (ITAT-ALLAHABAD)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 05-06-2025
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Partly Allowed
• Bench Allotted: SMC
• Assessment Year: 2011-2012
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act
• Result in Favour of: Partly Allowed
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: A.K. SINGH
• Keywords: Condonation of delay; Set aside; Opportunity of being heard; Corroborative evidences

Judgement Text

"I.T.A. No.49/Alld/2025 Assessment Year:2011-12 1 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ALLAHABAD BENCH “SMC”, ALLAHABAD BEFORE SHRI ANADEE NATH MISSHRA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI SUBHASH MALGURIA, JUDICIAL MEMBER I.T.A. No.49/Alld/2025 Assessment year:2011-12 Jan Shiksha Vikash Samiti, Gram Bharti Dhamaur, Sultanpur. PAN:AACAJ3906H Vs. Income Tax Officer (Exemption), Lucknow. (Appellant) (Respondent) O R D E R PER SUBHASH MALGURIA:J.M. This appeal vide I.T.A. No.49/Alld/2025 has been filed by the assessee for assessment year 2011-12 against impugned appellate order dated 17/01/2025 (DIN & Order No.ITBA/NFAC/S/250/2024- 25/1072262517(1) of Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) [“CIT(A)” for short]. 2. The facts of the case, in brief, are that the assessee is an AOP. The assessee has not filed income tax return for the year under consideration. During the year, the assessee had made cash deposits of Rs.17,79,226/- in savings bank account. In order to verify the source of deposits, the Assessing Officer issued notice to the assessee to furnish reply with Appellant by None Respondent by Shri A. K. Singh, Sr. D.R. I.T.A. No.49/Alld/2025 Assessment Year:2011-12 2 supporting evidences, if any. Since the assessee failed to furnish reply, the Assessing Officer completed the assessment and passed order u/s 144/147 of the Act, assessing the total income of the assessee at Rs.17,79,226/-. The assessment order was passed ex-parte qua the assessee. Being aggrieved, the assessee carried the matter in appeal before the learned CIT(A). Vide impugned appellate order dated 17/01/2025, the assessee’s appeal was dismissed by the learned CIT(A). The learned CIT(A) did not decide the assessee’s appeal on merits. The assessee’s appeal was dismissed by learned CIT(A) on grounds of limitation. The assessee had requested for condonation of delay on medical ground. However, the request of the assessee for condonation of delay was not considered favourably by the learned CIT(A) and the assessee’s appeal was dismissed treating the same as inadmissible on grounds of limitation. Aggrieved, the assessee has filed the present appeal in Income Tax Appellate Tribunal. 3. During the course of hearing, the assessee was represented by none. In the absence of any representation from assessee’s side, we heard learned Sr. D.R. and perused the materials on record. From the facts emerging from records and as pleaded by assessee in grounds of appeal, the appeal of the assessee has been dismissed without providing reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee. The assessee had sufficient cause, within the meaning of section 249(3) of the Act, for not filing appeal in the office of learned CIT(A) within time frame mentioned in section 249(2) of the Act. There was no mala-fide intention behind filing the appeal belatedly. The delay in filing of appeal in the office of the learned CIT(A) deserved to be condoned. In this case the Assessing Officer had passed ex- parte assessment order without providing reasonable opportunity to the assessee. In view of the foregoing, we are satisfied within the meaning of section 249(3), that the assessee had sufficient cause for not presenting the I.T.A. No.49/Alld/2025 Assessment Year:2011-12 3 appeal in the office of the learned CIT(A) within prescribed time limit. Accordingly, it is held that this was a fit case for the learned CIT(A) to condone the delay in filing of the appeal in his office and to admit the appeal for decision on merits. Further, on perusal of the assessment order and the impugned appellate order of learned CIT(A), we are of the view, in the specific facts and circumstances of the present case before us, that if the assessee has any grievance regarding reasonable opportunity not being provided to the assessee during assessment proceedings; the learned CIT(A) had no occasion to examine this matter as learned CIT(A) had dismissed the assessee’s appeal in limine, on the ground that the appeal filed in the office of learned CIT(A) was barred by limitation. Therefore, in the specific facts and circumstances of the present case, this matter should be first considered by learned CIT(A), as CIT(A) is the first appellate forum. 4. In view of the foregoing, we set aside the impugned appellate order. The learned CIT(A) is directed to condone the delay in filing of appeal in the office of learned CIT(A); and to admit the appeal. The learned CIT(A) is further directed to pass de novo order, which should be a speaking order on merits, on various grounds of appeal in the assessee’s appeal filed in the office of the learned CIT(A). 5. In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes. (Order pronounced in the open court on 05/06/2025) Sd/. Sd/. (ANADEE NATH MISSHRA) (SUBHASH MALGURIA) Accountant Member Judicial Member Dated:05/06/2025 *Singh I.T.A. No.49/Alld/2025 Assessment Year:2011-12 4 Copy of the order forwarded to : 1. The Appellant 2. The Respondent. 3. Concerned CIT 4. D.R., I.T.A.T., Lucknow "