PRESIDENT KODAGU RAITHA SHIKSHANA SAMSTHE,KODAGU V. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1, MADIKERI

ITA 462/BANG/2025

AI Insights

The case involves the President Kodagu Raitha Shikshana Samsthe, Sandeepany English Medium School, which appealed against an ex parte order from the CIT(A) for the assessment year 2016-17. The appeal was initially delayed due to a misunderstanding where the assessee mistook the CIT(A)'s order for a hearing notice. Upon realizing the mistake after receiving a demand notice from the Income Tax Department, the assessee filed the appeal with a delay of 201 days. The Tribunal found the explanation for the delay genuine and condoned it, setting aside the ex parte order and restoring the case for fresh assessment.

• Counselvise Citation: [2025] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 360726 (ITAT-BANGALORE)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 23-05-2025
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Assessment Year: 2016-2017
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: SUBRAMANIAN S
• Assessee Lawyers: SANDEEP CHALAPATHY
• Keywords: Condonation of delay; Set aside; Reasonable cause; Recovery proceedings

Judgement Text

" IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ‘B’ BENCH, BANGALORE BEFORE SHRI WASEEM AHMED, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI KESHAV DUBEY, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA No. 462/Bang/2025 Assessment Year: 2016-17 President Kodagu Raitha Shikshana Samsthe, Sandeepany English Medium School, Chowdlu, Somwarpet, Kodagu – 571 236. PAN – AACTP 8209 N Vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward - 1, Madikeri. . APPELLANT RESPONDENT Assessee by : Shri Sandeep Chalapathy, CA Revenue by : Shri Subramanian S, JCIT (DR) Date of hearing : 07.05.2025 Date of Pronouncement : 23.05.2025 O R D E R PER WASEEM AHMED, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER: This is an appeal filed by the assessee against the order passed by the NFAC, Delhi dated 14/06/2024 in DIN No. ITBA/NFAC/S/250/ 2024-25/1065662569(1) for the assessment year 2016-17. 2. There is a delay of 201 days in filing the appeal before the Tribunal. The assessee has filed an affidavit along with a petition for condonation of delay explaining the reasons for the delay. It is submitted that the assessee received multiple notices from the office of the ld. ITA No.462/Bang/2025 Page 2 of 4 . CIT(A) on different dates, intimating the dates of hearing. These notices were forwarded to the tax consultant for preparation of necessary submissions. However, while the preparation for compliance was ongoing, the assessee received an order dated 14.06.2024 from the ld. CIT(A), which dismissed the appeal ex-parte. The assessee mistakenly treated the said order as another hearing notice and, under a bona fide misunderstanding, did not prefer an appeal within the stipulated period. It was only upon receiving a demand notice from the Income Tax Department and being contacted by the Department regarding recovery proceedings that the assessee realized that the appeal had already been dismissed. The assessee thereafter took immediate steps to file the appeal before the Tribunal. However, in this process, the delay of 201 days has occurred, but such delay was due to this genuine and inadvertent misunderstanding. 2.1 The Ld. Authorised Representative (AR) submitted that the assessee is a non-profit entity engaged in providing education without any profit motive and that the delay was not intentional. The AR also assured that necessary compliance would be made in the future and no unwarranted adjournments would be sought. 3. On the other hand, the Ld. Departmental Representative (DR) opposed the condonation of delay, contending that the explanation regarding the delay in filing the appeal was not convincing. A prudent person would not mistake an appellate order as a mere notice of hearing. ITA No.462/Bang/2025 Page 3 of 4 . 4. We have heard the rival submissions and perused the materials available on record. It is noted that the impugned order passed by the ld. CIT(A) is an ex parte order, and the assessee was prevented by a bona fide and reasonable cause from filing the appeal in time. The explanation tendered by the assessee, though unusual, appears to be genuine and is supported by an affidavit. Thus, in the interest of substantial justice, and in view of the fact that the assessee is a non- profit educational institution, we are inclined to condone the delay of 201 days in filing the appeal by the assessee. 5. Furthermore, since the ld. CIT(A) passed the order ex parte and the assessee could not avail a proper opportunity to represent its case, and considering that the assessee has undertaken to cooperate and not to seek adjournments without valid cause, we deem it fit to set aside the impugned order and restore the matter to the file of the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication in accordance with law, after affording adequate opportunity to the assessee. We are setting aside the order of the ld. CIT-A to the file of AO for fresh adjudication as per the provisions of law for the reason that the assessee also failed to make necessary compliance during the assessment proceedings. 5.1 The assessee is also directed to extend full cooperation during the proceedings before the Assessing Officer and not to seek adjournments without sufficient cause. Failure to do so may invite adverse consequences. In view of the above, the ground of appeal is treated as allowed for statistical purposes. ITA No.462/Bang/2025 Page 4 of 4 . 6. In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced in court on 23rd day of May, 2025 Sd/- Sd/- (KESHAV DUBEY) (WASEEM AHMED) Judicial Member Accountant Member Bangalore Dated, 23rd May, 2025 / vms / Copy to: 1. The Applicant 2. The Respondent 3. The CIT 4. The CIT(A) 5. The DR, ITAT, Bangalore. 6. Guard file By order Asst. Registrar, ITAT, Bangalore "