SACRED TRUST REGISTERED ,BANGALORE V. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-5(3)(4), BANGALORE

ITA 1675/BANG/2024

AI Insights

The case involves Sacred Trust Registered, a charitable trust, which appealed against the order of the ld. CIT(A) that dismissed their appeal on the grounds of being barred by limitation. The original appeal was related to the denial of a deduction under section 10(23C)(iiiad) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, for the assessment year 2016-17, on the basis that the trust's income exceeded Rs. 1 Crore. The trust argued that the delay in filing the appeal with the CIT(A) was due to the late receipt of the order from CPC Bangalore, claiming they received it on 22.2.2024 instead of 30.4.2018, which they contended resulted in only a 6-day delay. However, the CIT(A) noted a delay of 5 years, 9 months, and 29 days. The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) had not judiciously dealt with the application for condonation of delay and thus remitted the matter back for a fresh decision on this procedural issue.

• Counselvise Citation: [2025] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 34094 (ITAT-BANGALORE)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 06-01-2025
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: C
• Assessment Year: 2016-2017
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act, 1961
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: GANESH R GALE; STANDING COUNSEL
• Assessee Lawyers: G. SATYANARAYANA
• Keywords: Condonation of delay; Reasonable cause; Competent authority; Charitable institution
• Section: 10(23C)

Judgement Text

"ITA No.1675/Bang/2024 Sacred Trust Registered, Bangalore IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “C’’ BENCH: BANGALORE BEFORE SHRI LAXMI PRASAD SAHU, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI PRAKASH CHAND YADAV, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA No.1675/Bang/2024 Assessment Year: 2016-17 Sacred Trust Registered Ganapathihalli, Big Banyan Tree Chunchanakuppe Posst Tavarekere Hobli Bangalore 562130 PAN NO : AAJTS9933P Vs. ITO (Exemptions) Ward-3 Bangalore APPELLANT RESPONDENT Appellant by : Sri G. Satyanarayana, A.R. Respondent by : Sri Ganesh R Gale, Standing counsel for department Date of Hearing : 23.12.2024 Date of Pronouncement : 06.01.2025 O R D E R PER PRAKASH CHAND YADAV, JUDICIAL MEMBER: Present appeal of the assessee is arising from the order of ld. CIT(A) dated 31.5.2024 having DIN & Order No.ITBA/APL/S/250/2024-25/1065317517(1) relates to AY 2016- 17. 2. The ld. CIT(A) has dismissed the appeal of the assessee on the ground that the appeal filed by the assessee was barred by limitation for 5 years 9 months and 29 days. 3. Before we proceed, it is worthy to note that there is a delay of 28 days before us in filing the appeal. Ld. Counsel for the assessee ITA No.1675/Bang/2024 Sacred Trust Registered, Bangalore Page 2 of 4 appearing on behalf of the assessee contended that the concerned person Mr. G.B. Raju was suffering from dengue. Ld. Counsel also drawn the attention of the bench towards the medical certificate issued by PYNAR Hospital, Hubli, Bangalore. 4. Ld. D.R. appearing on behalf of the revenue Mr. Gale strongly opposed the application for condonation of delay. 4.1 Mr. Gale submitted that the assessee is a non-cooperative assessee. He also could not appear before the ld. CIT(A) in time and there was a delay of around 6 years before the ld. CIT(A). 5. We have heard the rival submissions and perused the materials available on record. For the reasons mentioned in the delay application, we are of the view that there was a reasonable cause for not filing the appeal before us in time. Therefore, we hereby condone the delay of 28 days happened before us in filing the appeal. Now we proceed to decide the matter on merits. Facts of the case 6. The assessee is a Charitable Trust and owns 6 institutions. It has claimed deduction u/s 10(23C)(iiiad) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short “The Act”). The CPC Bangalore denied the claim of the assessee on the ground that the assessee’s income is above Rs.1 Crore. Hence, the assessee could have obtained the certificate u/s 10(23C) of the Act from the competent authority. 7. Aggrieved with the order of CPC, the assessee filed appeal before the ld. CIT(A) after a lapse of around 5 years 9 months and 28 days. Ld. Counsel for the assessee appearing on behalf of the assessee has contended that the assessee has received the order of ITA No.1675/Bang/2024 Sacred Trust Registered, Bangalore Page 3 of 4 CPC on 22.2.2024 instead of 30.4.2018 and hence, there was a delay of only 6 days before the ld. CIT(A). 8. Ld. D.R. Mr. Gale pointed out that in form 35, the assessee himself has mentioned that it has received the order on 30.4.2018. Therefore, the delay is of 5 years 9 months 29 days. 9. We have heard the rival submissions and perused the materials available on record. Without commenting upon the merits of the application in respect of condonation of delay happened before ld. CIT(A), we are of the view that it is a case of inordinate delay and hence, the burden is on the assessee to prove the delay happened before the ld. CIT(A) with cogent material. The ld. CIT(A) has also not dealt with the application of the assessee in a judicious manner. Therefore, in the interest of justice, we remit this matter to the file of ld. CIT(A) once again. The ld. CIT(A) will consider the application for condonation of delay of the assessee in accordance with law and will decide whether the appeal of the assessee is liable to be admitted or not? The assessee is given a liberty to prove his case vis-à-vis delay happened before the ld. CIT(A). We are not dealing with the merits of the case right now. 10. In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced in the open court on 6th Jan, 2025 Sd/- (Laxmi Prasad Sahu) Accountant Member Sd/- (Prakash Chand Yadav) Judicial Member Bangalore, Dated 6th Jan, 2025. VG/SPS ITA No.1675/Bang/2024 Sacred Trust Registered, Bangalore Page 4 of 4 Copy to: 1. The Applicant 2. The Respondent 3. The CIT 4. The DR, ITAT, Bangalore. 5 Guard file By order Asst. Registrar, ITAT, Bangalore. "