SHRI SAINATH SEVABHAVI SANSTHA ,LATUR V. ITO, EXEMPTION WARD, NANDED, NANDED

ITA 1319/PUN/2025

AI Insights

The case involves Shri Sainath Sevabhavi Sanstha, a registered trust, which appealed against the order of the Ld. CIT(A) for the assessment year 2013-14. The primary contention was the non-condonation of delay in filing the appeal and the incorrect treatment of gross receipts as income without allowing deductions for expenses. The CPC had initially processed the return, treating the gross receipts as income and rejecting the expense claims. The assessee's subsequent rectification applications were partially accepted, leading to a refund that was later rejected on technical grounds. The Tribunal found merit in the assessee's arguments regarding the procedural delays and the substantive issues of income assessment.

• Counselvise Citation: [2025] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 716721 (ITAT-PUNE)
• Duration Of Justice: 3 month(s) 1 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 22-08-2025
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: B
• Assessment Year: 2013-2014
• Appeal Filed On: 21-05-2025
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: AKHILESH SRIVASTVA
• Assessee Lawyers: SARANG GUDHATE
• Keywords: Condonation of delay
• Section: 154; 119(2)(b)

Judgement Text

"IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL PUNE BENCH “B”, PUNE BEFORE SHRI MANISH BORAD, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI VINAY BHAMORE, JUDICIAL MEMBER आयकर अपील सं. / ITA No.1319/PUN/2025 िनधाᭅरण वषᭅ / Assessment Year : 2013-14 Shri Sainath Sevabhavi Sanstha, Akharwai, Harangul Bk, Latur, Harangai Bk, B.O., Latur- 413531. PAN : AAKTS9324H Vs. ITO, Exemption Ward, Nanded. Appellant Respondent आदेश / ORDER PER VINAY BHAMORE, JM: This appeal filed by the assessee is directed against the order dated 30.04.2025 passed by Ld. Addl./JCIT(A)-7, Delhi [‘Ld. CIT(A)’] for the assessment year 2013-14. 2. The appellant has raised the following grounds of appeal :- “(Without prejudice to each other) 1. Under the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A)/NFAC has erred in not condoning the delay in filing of Appeal. 2. Under the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, Ld CIT(A)/NFAC has erred in denying the expenditure incurred and treating the Gross Receipts as Income in Intimation u/s 143(1). Assessee by : Shri Sarang Gudhate Revenue by : Shri Akhilesh Srivastva Date of hearing : 30.07.2025 Date of pronouncement : 22.08.2025 Printed from counselvise.com ITA No.1319/PUN/2025 2 3. Under the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld CIT(A)/NFAC has not justified in making disallowance of expenditure in the intimation U/s 143(1) as the scope of intimation is limited. 4. The appellant craves the permission to add, amend, modify, alter, revise, substitute, delete any or all grounds of appeal if deemed necessary at the time of hearing of the appeal.” 3. Facts of the case, in brief, are that the assessee is registered under the Bombay Public Trust Act, 1950 and also registered under the Societies Registration Act, 1860. The income tax return was submitted on 17.10.2014 wherein gross receipt of Rs.75,08,741/- and expenses of Rs.73,17,696/- were shown resulting in net surplus of Rs.1,91,045/-. CPC processed the return on 14.03.2015 determining gross total income of Rs.75,08,740/- treating gross receipt as income and rejecting the claim of expenses of Rs.73,17,696/-. Against the above intimation, the assessee filed rectification application u/s 154 of the IT Act before ITO, Exemption, Nanded vide application dated 22.12.2017 stating that the assessee inadvertently filed the return in Form No.7 whereas he was required to file return in Form No.5 & therefore requested to accept the return filed by the assessee. Subsequently, assessee vide letter dated 22.08.2018 requested for transfer of PAN from Nanded to Latur. Thereafter, again on 27.01.2020 assessee filed application for rectification physically before ITO, Latur. Printed from counselvise.com ITA No.1319/PUN/2025 3 4. Vide letter dated 08.10.2020, ITO, Latur informed the assessee that his application u/s 154 dated 27.01.2020 was allowed and resulted in refund of Rs.4,58,640/-, however when the same was submitted for the approval of the Addl.CIT, Nanded on 13.05.2020, the Addl.CIT, Nanded vide letter dated 17.07.2020 rejected the refund approval and directed to file the application u/s 119(2)(b) of the IT Act for condoning the delay in filing of another return in appropriate form. The assessee then filed application for condonation of delay u/s 119(2)(b) of the IT Act before PCIT, Nashik, who vide order dated 05.01.2022 rejected the application u/s 119(2)(b) of the IT Act. Therefore, the assessee belatedly furnished first appeal against the intimation u/s 143(1) order dated 14.03.2015 before Ld. CIT(A). Ld. CIT(A) without condoning the delay of 2489 days dismissed the appeal filed by the assessee without admitting the same for adjudication. 5. It is this order against which the assessee is in appeal before this Tribunal. 6. Ld. AR appearing from side of the assessee submitted before us that the order passed by Ld. CIT(A) is unjustified. Ld. AR further submitted that there was sufficient cause which prevented the assessee to file appeal within prescribed time limit. In this Printed from counselvise.com ITA No.1319/PUN/2025 4 regard, Ld. AR submitted that the application for rectification u/s 154 of the IT Act was allowed by ITO, Latur and was sent for approval of refund before Addl.CIT who rejected the same by saying that the assessee should file application for condonation u/s 119(2)(b) of the IT Act for filing return of income in correct form, and when the application u/s 119(2)(b) of the IT Act was rejected then the assessee chose to file first appeal before Ld. CIT(A) which resulted in a delay of 2489 days. Accordingly, Ld. AR requested before the Bench to set-aside the order passed by Ld. CITA) and further requested to delete the addition made by CPC and accept the income returned by the assessee in the light of the fact that ITO, Latur has already accepted his 154 application & calculated refund in his case although the same was not approved on the ground of technicality by Addl.CIT. 7. Ld. DR appearing from side of the Revenue relied on the orders passed by the subordinate authorities and requested to confirm the same. 8. We have heard Ld. Counsels from both the sides and perused the material available on record including the paper book and written submission furnished by the assessee. In this regard, we find that admittedly the return was not furnished in correct form & Printed from counselvise.com ITA No.1319/PUN/2025 5 whole of the gross receipt was taxed as income by CPC without allowing deduction of expenses incurred & claimed by the assessee. However, at the same time, we also find that the assessee filed application dated 22-12-2017 for rectification u/s 154 of the IT Act & his subsequent manual application dated 27-01-2020 u/s 154 for rectification was considered by ITO, Latur & refund of Rs.4,58,640/- was sent for approval before Addl. CIT, Nanded, who rejected the same for technical reasons. All these facts are verifiable from the record produced before us in the paper-book furnished by the assessee & are also not disputed by the Ld. DR. 9. Considering the totality of the facts of the case, we find force in the above arguments of Ld. Counsel of the assessee that he was prevented by reasonable & sufficient cause in not filing the appeal before Ld. CIT(A) within the prescribed time limit & accordingly, we deem it appropriate to set-aside the order passed by Ld. CIT(A) & remand the matter back to the file of Jurisdictional Assessing Officer to determine the correct income of the assessee and issue refund, if any, after verifying the claim of the assessee with regard to deductions of expenditure incurred by the assessee. Needless to mention here, the Assessing Officer shall decide the issue after providing reasonable opportunity of hearing to the assessee. The Printed from counselvise.com ITA No.1319/PUN/2025 6 assessee is also hereby directed to respond to the notices issued by Jurisdictional Assessing Officer in this regard. Thus, the grounds of appeal filed by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes. 10. In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced on this 22nd day of August, 2025. Sd/- Sd/- (MANISH BORAD) (VINAY BHAMORE) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER पुणे / Pune; ᳰदनांक / Dated : 22nd August, 2025. Sujeet आदेश कᳱ ᮧितिलिप अᮕेिषत / Copy of the Order forwarded to : 1. अपीलाथᱮ / The Appellant. 2. ᮧ᭜यथᱮ / The Respondent. 3. The Addl./JCIT(A)-7, Delhi. 4. The Pr.CIT/CIT concerned. 5. िवभागीय ᮧितिनिध, आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, “B” बᱶच, पुणे / DR, ITAT, “B” Bench, Pune. 6. गाडᭅ फ़ाइल / Guard File. आदेशानुसार / BY ORDER, // True Copy // Senior Private Secretary आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, पुणे / ITAT, Pune. Printed from counselvise.com "