PARMESHWAR DWAR SOCIETY,PATIALA, PUNJAB V. INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, CHANDIGARGH

ITA 565/CHANDI/2025

AI Insights

The case involves the Parmeshwar Dwar Society, which appealed against the order of the CIT(A) NFAC-Delhi for the Assessment Year 2020-21. The primary contention was the dismissal of their appeal ex-parte by the CIT(A), which the Assessee argued was due to the sudden demise of the President's mother, a circumstance they claimed constituted sufficient cause for their non-appearance. The Assessing Officer had previously treated the Society as an AOP and disallowed significant expenses due to lack of documentary evidence linking income and expenses. The Tribunal found merit in the Assessee's request for a re-evaluation of their case, leading to the remand.

• Counselvise Citation: [2026] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 847935 (ITAT-CHANDIGARH)
• Duration Of Justice: 11 month(s) 5 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 24-03-2026
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: Chandigarh
• Assessment Year: 2020-2021
• Appeal Filed On: 18-04-2025
• Other Referred Cases: Collector, Land Acquisition vs. Mst. Katiji [1987] 167 ITR 471 (SC)
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act, 1961
• Result in Favour of: Matter Remanded
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: . RANJIT KAUR LD.
• Assessee Lawyers: RAJESH KUMAR VERMA
• Keywords: Condonation of delay; Corroborative evidences; Principle of natural justice
• Section: 142(1); 12AA

Judgement Text

" IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “B” BENCH, CHANDIGARH PHYSICAL HEARING BEFORE HON’BLE SHRI LALIET KUMAR, JM AND HON’BLE SHRI KRINWANT SAHAY, AM आयकरअपीलसं./ ITA No.565/CHANDI/2025 (िनधाŊरणवषŊ / Assessment Year: 2020-21) Parmeshwar Dwar Soceity Shekhupur, Patiala Punjab - 147001 बनाम/ Vs. ITO (Exemption) Ward Chandigarh ˕ायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./PAN/GIR No. AADTP-3655-P (अपीलाथŎ/Appellant) : (ŮȑथŎ / Respondent) अपीलाथŎकीओरसे/ Appellant by : Sh. Rajesh Kumar Verma (CA) ŮȑथŎकीओरसे/Respondent by : Sh. Dr. Ranjit Kaur (Addl. CIT) Ld. Sr. DR सुनवाईकीतारीख/Date of Hearing : 23-03-2026 घोषणाकीतारीख /Date of Pronouncement : 24-03-2026 आदेश / O R D E R Krinwant Sahay (Accountant Member) 1. The appeal in this case has been filed by the Assessee against the order dated 03.01.2025 passed by the Ld. CIT(A) NFAC- Delhi for Assessment Year 2020-21. The registry has pointed out the delay of 17 days in filing of this appeal. The Assessee has filed an application for condonation of delay alongwith an affidavit which are reproduced as under: Printed from counselvise.com Printed from counselvise.com 2. We have gone through the application for the condonation of delay and keeping in view the issues mentioned therein for filing of delayed appeal we are inclined to condone the delay. The Ld. DR did not object to the condonation of delay. 3. The Grounds of appeal are as under: 1. That the Ld. CIT(A) failed to appreciate that the non-appearance was due to the sudden demise of the President’s mother, which constituted sufficient cause for absence. This was neither intentional nor negligent, as it arose from unavoidable and inadvertent circumstances. 2. That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(A) erred in dismissing the appeal ex-parte without adjudicating on merits despite valid grounds having been raised. 3. That the appellant craves leave to add, alter, amend or withdraw any grounds of appeal before valid grounds before or at the time of hearing. 4. That the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Collector, Land Acquisition vs. Mst. Katiji [1987] 167 ITR 471 (SC) has held that the liberal approach should be adopted in condoning delay where sufficient cause is shown, and the appellant prays for condonation of delay and restoration of the appeal for adjudication on merits in the interest of justice. 5. That the assessment order is bad in law, contrary to the principles of natural justice, and liable to be quashed. 6. That the Ld. AO failed to provide adequate opportunity and ignored the voluminous evidence already filed by the appellant during the course of assessment. 7. That the Learned CIT(A) erred in upholding the addition of 53,50,115/- under Section 57 without appreciating documentary evidence furnished during the assessment proceedings, which clearly substantiated that all expenses were incurred solely for charitable and religious purposes in line with the objectives of the Society. Printed from counselvise.com 3. The brief facts of the case are as under:- 1) In this above mentioned case, As per information available with the department, it was found that the appellant has filed return of income in ITR-5 on 07/01/2021 declaring total income at Rs. 1,00,970/- and the appellant has deposited cash of Rs.43,74,790/- in the bank account maintained with Axis Bank Ltd. During F.Y. 2019-20 relavant to A.Y. 2020-21. Accordingly, the case was selected for scrutiny through Compulsory category to verify certain issues). Thereafter, statutory notice u/s 143(2) of the I.T. Act, 1961 was issued on 30/06/2021 and duly served upon the appellant. 2) Subsequently, multiple notices u/s 142(1) of the Act alongwith detailed questionnaire were also issued seeking information about nature and source of the deposits Rs. 43,74,790/- in his bank account maintained with Axis Bank Ltd. During F.Y. 2019-20. In response to the above notices, the appellant responded and filed submission. Alongwith perusal of written submission of the appellant and perusal of information available with the department about the appellant, the Assessing Officer found that during the F.Y. 2019-20, the appellant had claimed expenses of Rs. 52,50,115/- and had shown the total receipts of Rs. 53,51,082/- from donation. Further, the Assessing Officer found that during the year under consideration, the appellant’s application for approval under Section 12AA was rejected by CIT(Exemption), Chandigarh vide Order u/s 12AA(1)(b)(ii) of the Act dated 21/09/2020. Accordingly, the appellant was assessed as an AOP. During the assessment proceedings the Assessing Officer noticed that the appellant had failed to explain with documentary evidence the nexus between income earned and expenses incurred. Therefore, the receipts of Rs. 53,51,082/- were treated as “income from other sources” and the expenses of Rs. 52,50,115/- were disallowed and hence Assessing Officer made addition of Rs. 52,50,115/- to the total income of the appellant. Printed from counselvise.com 4. “Against the order of the AO, the Assessee preferred an appeal before the Ld. CIT(A) who dismissed the appeal making observations as under: The appellant has been provided sufficient opportunities but the appellant failed to submit any submission or evidence during appellate in support of grounds of appeal as well as statement of facts and remained non-compliant. Therefore, in view of the above facts, I am constrained to uphold the order of the Assessing Officer, in absence of any supporting evidence, documents submitted by the appellant. Accordingly, all the grounds of appeal are hereby dismissed.” 5. During proceedings before us, the Ld. Counsel tried to explain various facts which were as Ld. CIT(A) has observed in his appellate order not produced before authorities below, therefore, in the fitness of things and keeping in view, the element of natural justice to the Assessee we are inclined to remand this case back to the file of the AO for passing of de-novo order after giving sufficient opportunity to the Assessee as required under law. 6. The Assessee is also directed to cooperate with the revenue by filing of the required documents and details. The Assessee is also directed not to take unnecessary adjournments. 7. In the result, Assessee’s appeal is allowed for statistical purposes Order pronounced on 24-03-2026 -Sd- -Sd- (LALIET KUMAR) (KRINWANT SAHAY) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AS Printed from counselvise.com Dated: 24-03-2026 आदेश की Ůितिलिप अŤेिषत /Copy of the Order forwarded to : 1. अपीलाथŎ/Appellant 2. ŮȑथŎ/Respondent 3. आयकरआयुƅ/CIT 4. िवभागीयŮितिनिध/DR 5. गाडŊफाईल/GF ASSISTANT REGISTRAR ITAT CHANDIGARH Printed from counselvise.com "