NAVAJEEVAN BETHANY VIDYALAYA,TRIVANDRUM V. INCOME TAX OFFICER, EXEMPTION WARD, TRIVANDRUM, TRIVANDRUM

SA 71/COCH/2025

AI Insights

The case involves Navajeevan Bethany Vidyalaya, a charitable institution registered under section 12A of the Income Tax Act, 1961, which appealed against the order of the National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC) that dismissed their appeal for non-prosecution. The appellant had not filed a regular return of income for the Assessment Year 2013-14, leading to an assessment order by the National Faceless Assessment Centre (AO) denying exemption under section 11 of the Act. The Tribunal found procedural irregularities in the service of notice and remanded the case for a fresh hearing.

• Counselvise Citation: [2025] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 716988 (ITAT-COCHIN)
• Duration Of Justice: 26 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Stay Application
• Pronouncement Date: 19-08-2025
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: DB
• Assessment Year: 2013-2014
• Appeal Filed On: 24-07-2025
• Other Referred Cases: Munjal BCU Centre of Innovation and Entrepreneurship v. CIT (Exemptions)
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act, 1961
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: NEETHU S.
• Assessee Lawyers: C.J. ROMID
• Keywords: Condonation of delay; Reasonable cause; Principle of natural justice; Search and seizure; Charitable institution; Application of stay
• Section: 147; 148; 142(1); 11; 12A

Judgement Text

"IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL COCHIN BENCH BEFORE SHRI INTURI RAMA RAO, AM AND SHRI RAHUL CHAUDHARY, JM ITA No. 516/Coch/2025 & SA No. 71/Coch/2025 Assessment Year: 2013-14 Navajeevan Bethany Vidyalaya .......... Appellant Nalanchira, Thiruvananthapuram 695015 [PAN: AAAAN5526B] vs. The Income Tax Officer (Exemption) .......... Respondent Thiruvananthapuram Assessee by: Shri C.J. Romid, CA Revenue by: Ms. Neethu S., Sr. DR Date of Hearing: 18.08.2025 Date of Pronouncement: 19.08.2025 O R D E R Per: Inturi Rama Rao, AM This appeal filed by the assessee is directed against the order of the National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi dated 14.11.2024 for Assessment Year (AY) 2013-14. Appellant also filed a stay application seeking stay of collection of outstanding demand of Rs. 1,11,28,727/-. 2. Brief facts of the case are that the appellant is a charitable institution incorporated with the object of imparting education. It is duly registered u/s. 12A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (the Act). No Printed from counselvise.com 2 ITA 516/Coch/2025 & SA 71/C/2025 Navajeevan Bethany Vidyalaya regular return of income was filed by the appellant for AY 2013-14. Therefore, the AO issued notice u/s. 148 of the Act on 29.03.2021 requiring the appellant to file the return of income. The appellant neither complied with the notice u/s. 148 nor the notice issued u/s. 142(1) of the Act. In the circumstances, assessment was complied by the National Faceless Assessment Centre (hereinafter called \"the AO\") vide order dated 28.03.2022 passed u/s. 147 r.w.s. 144B of the Act at a total income of Rs. 1,22,60,098/-. While doing so, the AO had denied exemption u/s. 11 of the Act on the ground that the appellant had not filed return of income under the provisions of section 139(1) of the Act. 3. Being aggrieved, an appeal was filed before the NFAC, who vide the impugned order dismissed the appeal for non-prosecution. 4. Being aggrieved, the appellant is in appeal before this Tribunal in the present appeal. 5. At the outset, we find that there is a delay of 169 days in filing the present appeal. The appellant filed a petition along with an affidavit seeking condonation of delay in filing the appeal, wherein it is stated that the appellant had decided not go for appeal as the return was filed late. But later the parents of a student informed the appellant that filing of return is compulsory only from AY 2018-19 as per the Memorandum attached to Finance Act, 2017. Hence, the delay is not willful or deliberate. Therefore, it is prayed that the delay in filing the appeal may be condoned and the appeal may be Printed from counselvise.com 3 ITA 516/Coch/2025 & SA 71/C/2025 Navajeevan Bethany Vidyalaya admitted for adjudication. Having regard to the averments made in the affidavit seeking condonation of delay, in the absence of any evidence to the contrary, we are of the considered opinion that the appellant society is prevented by sufficient reasonable cause in filing the appeal within the prescribed limit. Accordingly, we condone the delay and admit the appeal for adjudication on merit. 6. We have heard the rival contentions and perused the material on record. At the outset we find that the NFAC had issued notice of hearing through ITBA portal. In our considered opinion, it is not a valid method and manner of service of notice as specified under the provisions of section 282(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 Act and Rule 127(1) of the Income-tax Rules, 1962. Therefore, it is crystal clear that the notices were not served upon the appellant. To fortify our view, we would like to make reference to a decision rendered by the Hon’ble Punjab & Haryana High Court in the case of Munjal BCU Centre of Innovation and Entrepreneurship v. CIT (Exemptions) (2024) 463 ITR 560 (P&H), wherein the Hon’ble High Court after making reference to provisions of 282(1) held that service of notice through ITBA portal is not valid service and remanded the matter to AO for denovo disposal of case. The relevant paragraphs of the judgment are reproduced below : “7. We are afraid that we cannot subscribe to the submissions as advanced by the learned counsel for the Revenue-respondent. The provisions of section 282(1) of the Act of 1961 and rule 127(1) of the Income-tax Rules, 1962 Printed from counselvise.com 4 ITA 516/Coch/2025 & SA 71/C/2025 Navajeevan Bethany Vidyalaya provides for a method and manner of service of notice and orders which read as follows : . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8. In view of the above, it is essential that before any action is taken, communication of the notice must be done in terms of the provisions as enumerated hereinabove. The provisions do not mention communication to be “presumed” by placing notice on the e-portal. A pragmatic view has to be adopted always in these circumstances. An individual or a company is not expected to keep the e-portal of the Department open all the time so as to have knowledge of what the Department is supposed to be doing with regard to the submissions of forms etc. The principles of natural justice are inherent in the income-tax provisions and the same are required to be necessarily followed. 9. Having noticed as above, this court is of the firm view that the petitioner has not been given sufficient opportunity to put up its please with regard to the proceedings under section 12A(1)(ac)(iii) of the Act of 1961 and as it was not served with any notice. Therefore, he would be entitled to file his reply and the Department would of course be entitled to examine the same and pass a fresh order thereafter. 10. In view of the above, the writ petition is allowed and the order dated January 16, 2023 (annexure P-5) is quashed and set-aside. The Department would provide an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner and they will also allow the petitioner to appear personally for the purpose and pass a speaking order independent of the order passed earlier by them on January 16,2023. The same shall be done expeditiously provided the petitioner files his reply within a period of three weeks.” In view of the above legal position, we are of the considered opinion that proper notice(s) of hearing were not served properly to the Printed from counselvise.com 5 ITA 516/Coch/2025 & SA 71/C/2025 Navajeevan Bethany Vidyalaya appellant. Therefore, we are of the considered opinion that in the interest of justice, the matter should be remitted back to the file of CIT(A) for de novo adjudication after affording reasonable opportunity to the appellant, in accordance with law. The appellant is at liberty to file any evidence in support of her claim as it deems expedient. 7. Since we have disposed off the appeal, the stay application filed by the assessee stands dismissed. 8. In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee stands partly allowed for statistical purposes and the stay application stands dismissed. Order pronounced in the open court on 19th August, 2025. Sd/- Sd/- (RAHUL CHAUDHARY) JUDICIAL MEMBER (INTURI RAMA RAO) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Cochin, Dated: 19th August, 2025 n.p. Copy to: 1. The Appellant 2. The Respondent 3. The Pr. CIT concerned 4. The Sr. DR, ITAT, Cochin 5. Guard File Assistant Registrar ITAT, Cochin Printed from counselvise.com "