ST MARYS JACOBITE SYRIAN CHURCH,TRIPUNITHURA V. INCOME TAX OFFICER , EXEMPTION WARD, KOCHI, KOCHI

ITA 206/COCH/2024

AI Insights

The case involves St. Marys Jacobite Syrian Church, a trust registered under section 12AA of the Income-tax Act, which filed an appeal against the order of the Income Tax Officer and the subsequent dismissal by the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals). The primary issue arose from the incorrect email address used for communication by the tax authorities, leading to the assessee's failure to appear in previous hearings. The Tribunal noted the procedural lapses and the incorrect application of tax provisions, which led to the decision to remand the case back to the CIT(A) for a thorough re-examination.

• Counselvise Citation: [2025] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 471685 (ITAT-COCHIN)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 19-02-2025
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: DB
• Assessment Year: 2016-2017
• Laws Referred To: Income-tax Act
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: LEENA LAL
• Assessee Lawyers: PARVATHY AMMAL
• Keywords: Condonation of delay; Opportunity of being heard; Reasonable cause
• Section: 142(1); 13; 12

Judgement Text

"IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL COCHIN BENCH, COCHIN Before Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Accountant Member & Shri Prakash Chand Yadav, Judicial Member ITA No.206/Coch/2024 : Asst.Year 2016-2017 St.Marys Jacobite Syrian Church Nadama, Tripunithura Ernakulam – 682 301 PAN : AADTS3299J. v. The Income Tax Officer Exemption Ward Kochi. (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant by : Smt.Parvathy Ammal, CA Respondent by :Smt.Leena Lal, Sr.AR Date of Hearing : 21.01.2025. Date of Pronouncement : 19.02.2025 O R D E R Per Prakash Chand Yadav, JM : The present appeal filed by the assessee is arising from the order of the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) dated 26th October, 2023 and it relates to assessment year 2016- 2017, having DIN & Order No.ITBA/NFAC/S/250/2023- 24/1057425641(1). 2. The brief facts of the case are that the assessee is a trust having registration u/s.12AA of the Income-tax Act, filed its return of income on 28thJuly, 2016 declaring `Nil’ income. The case of the assessee was selected for scrutiny and accordingly the statutory notices u/s.143(2) and 142(1) were issued to the assessee. However, no one appeared from the side of the assessee. Therefore, the Assessing Officer taxed the entire ITA No.206/Coch/2024. St.Marys Jacobite Syrian Church. 2 receipt as income from other sources applying the rate of tax applicable to the association of persons, meaning thereby the A.O. has not allowed any benefit of secs. 11, 12 and 13 of the Act to the assessee. 3. Aggrieved with the order of the A.O., the assessee filed appeal before the learned CIT(A). However, the learned the ld.CIT(A) also none appeared from the side of the assessee, and hence, the CIT(A) dismissed the appeal of the assessee ex parte without dealing with the merits of the case. 4. Aggrieved with the order of the ld.CIT(A), the assessee preferred the present appeal. There is a delay of 79 days in the present appeal. Explaining the reasons for delay, the learned Counsel for the assessee has drawn the attention of the bench towards an affidavit filed by the assessee in support of application for condonation of delay. The main contention of the assessee is that the notices from the assessment as well as the appeal proceedings before the ld.CIT(A) were issued in a wrong email address, and hence, no one appeared before the ld.CIT(A). The same reasons for the delay of 79 days has been made by the assessee before us. 5. The learned Departmental Representative strongly opposed the petition for condonation of delay filed by the assessee. 6. After considering the rival submissions and perusing the material available on record, we observe that the correct email id of the assessee was [e-mail]. However, ITA No.206/Coch/2024. St.Marys Jacobite Syrian Church. 3 the notices were issued in an incorrect address, i.e.,[e-mail]. Similarly, the order of the ld.CIT(A) has also been sent in the wrong email id. Therefore, there was a reasonable cause for not filing appeal on time. Hence, we condone the ordinate delay of 79 days happened and proceeded to decide the matter. 7. After perusing the order of the ld.CIT(A) we observe that except one notice of hearing or other the notices were pertained to Covid period. Further, we have also observed that the notices of hearing were sent to wrong email id and that is why the assessee could not appear before the ld.CIT(A). Further, the ld.CIT(A) has not at all dealt with the merits of the case, and hence, it is a clear cut violation of provisions of section 250(6) of the Act. Therefore, in the interest of justice, we restore this matter back to the file of the ld.CIT(A) for deciding afresh in accordance with law. Needless to say, the ld.CIT(A) would grant sufficient opportunity of being heard to the assessee before passing any order. 8. In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced on this 19th day of February, 2025. Sd/- (Inturi Rama Rao) Sd/- (Prakash Chand Yadav) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER Cochin; Dated : 19th February, 2025. Devadas G* ITA No.206/Coch/2024. St.Marys Jacobite Syrian Church. 4 Copy to : 1. The Appellant. 2. The Respondent. 3. The CIT, Cochin. 4. The DR, ITAT, Cochin. 5. Guard File. Asst.Registrar/ITAT, Cochin "