SWARGIY GOPALRAO GAWANDE BAHUUDESHIY SANSTHA BHIDI,WARDHA V. ITO WARD 4, NAGPUR

ITA 457/NAG/2024

AI Insights

The case involves Swargiy Gopalrao Gawande Bahuudeshiy Sanstha Bhidi, an educational trust, which faced a penalty for late filing of its income tax return for the assessment year 2009-10. The return was filed 2,307 days late, leading to a penalty of Rs. 230,700 under section 272A(2)(e) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The trust's appeal against this penalty was initially dismissed by the Joint Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemptions), Nagpur, due to non-appearance and non-submission of any explanation for the delay. The trust's subsequent appeal to the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) was also dismissed due to a 25-day delay in filing the appeal, which was not condoned. The Tribunal's decision focused on the lack of a reasonable cause for the delay in filing the appeal against the penalty.

• Counselvise Citation: [2025] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 24324 (ITAT-NAGPUR)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 10-02-2025
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: DB
• Assessment Year: 2009-2010
• Other Referred Cases: Pathapati Subba Reddy (Died) By Lrs And... vs Special Deputy Collector (La)
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act, 1961
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: ABHAY Y. MARATHE
• Keywords: Condonation of delay; Reasonable cause
• Section: 147; 11; 274

Judgement Text

" IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR BEFORE SHRI V. DURGA RAO, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI K.M. ROY, ACCOUNTANT, MEMBER ITA no.457/Nag./2024 (Assessment Year : 202009–10) Swargiy Gopalrao Gawande Bahuudeshiy Sanstha Bhidi Bhidi, Deoli, Wardha 442 001 PAN – AAITS4987L ……………. Appellant v/s Income Tax Officer Ward–4, Nagpur ……………. Respondent Assessee by : None Revenue by : Shri Abhay Y. Marathe Date of Hearing – 07/01/2025 Date of Order – 10/02/2025 O R D E R PER V. DURGA RAO, J.M. Aforesaid appeal preferred by the assessee is emanating from the impugned order dated 29/06/2024, passed by the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi, [“learned CIT(A)”], for the assessment year 2009–10, affirming the penalty levied by the Assessing Officer under section 272A(2)(e) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (“the Act”). 2. The assessee is a registered Trust is exclusively acting as an educational trust and is engaged in imparting technical and other education to 2 Swargiy Gopalrao Gawande Bahuudeshiy Sanstha Bhidi ITA no.457/Nag./2024 students. The case was re-opened under section 147 of the Act and the notice was issued on 09/03/2015, in response to which the assessee filed its return of income on 25/01/2016, which was originally due on 30/09/2009, i.e., the said return of income was late in filing by 2,307 days. The said delay in filing the return of income resulted in committing fault by the assessee within the meaning of provisions of section 272A(2)€ of the Act. Hence, the learned Jt. CIT (Exemptions), Nagpur, issued statutory notices dated 12/09/2018, under section 274 r/w section 272A(2)(e) of the Act fixing the date of hearing on 27/09/2018, to explain the reason for non-filing of return of income on time and to show cause as to why penalty under section 272A(2)(e) of the Act should not be levied upon it. It is pertinent to note here that the notice was issued through electronic mail and as well as by speed post. However, neither the assessee nor any of its authorised representatives appeared before the learned Jt. CIT (Exemp.), Nagpur. There was no written submission filed by the assessee either. Hence, the learned Jt. CIT (Exemp.), Nagpur, held as under:- “4. The essential requirement of section 139(4A) for the purpose of levy of penalty u/s 272A(2)(e) is \"if the total income in respect of which assessee is assessable as representative assessee (the total income for this purpose being computed under this act without giving effect to provisions of section 11 & 12) exceeds the maximum amount which is not chargeable to income tax. . Considering this the assessee has committed a default within the meaning of provisions of section 272A(2)(e) of the IT Act, 1961 by filing Return of Income late by 2307 days from the due date of filing of return without any reasonable cause, for the Α.Υ. 2009-10. 6. Therefore, I hereby levy a penalty of Rs. 230700/- (Rupees Two Lakh Thirty Thousand Seven Hundred Only) [@ Rs. 100/- per day for 230700 days] U/s 272A(2)(e) of the IT Act, 1961. 3 Swargiy Gopalrao Gawande Bahuudeshiy Sanstha Bhidi ITA no.457/Nag./2024 7. The Assessing Officer is directed to take this amount of penalty on record and to issue and serve upon the assessee a demand notice and challan asking the assessee to pay the amount of penalty, so levied. The assessee being not satisfied with the penalty order passed by the learned Jt. CIT (Exemp.), Nagpur, went in appeal before the first appellate authority. 3. Before the learned CIT(A), the assessee filed appeal which was delayed by 25 days. The grounds raised by the assessee for condonation of delay are as under:- “(i) DUE TO UNAWARENESS OF THE LOCAL MANAGER AND STAFF THERE, THE NOTICES WERE LATE SUBMITTED TO THE TRUSTEE.” 4. The learned CIT(A) held that there was no reasonable cause for filing the appeal belatedly and such explanation was not acceptable to the learned CIT(A). Thus, the learned CIT(A) rejected the application for condonation of delay in filing the appeal before the first appellate authority with following observations:- “A. lt is the responsibility of the person, who is supposed to make compliance as per law and not his employee or his counsel, to ensure and make such compliance. The appellant voluntarily chose and hired the employee and provided his e-mail id for communication with the Income Tax department and he cannot now avoid the consequences of the acts or omissions of his employee. The appellant cannot take excuse of omission of his employee. If this shifting of burden of making compliance is accepted, the person who is supposed to make compliance as per law will use this practice by just producing affidavit(s) from his employee/counsel as these employees and counsel will not have to suffer consequences of non-compliance. 4. The Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in case of Pathapati Subba Reddy (Died) By Lrs And... vs Special Deputy Collector (La) held as under:- 4 Swargiy Gopalrao Gawande Bahuudeshiy Sanstha Bhidi ITA no.457/Nag./2024 \"(1) the appeal which is preferred after the expiry of the limitation is liable to be dismissed. The use of the word 'shall' in the aforesaid provision connotes that the dismissal is mandatory subject to the exceptions. Section 3 of the Act is peremptory and had to be given effect to even though no objection regarding limitation is taken by the other side or referred to in the pleadings. In other words, it casts an obligation upon the court to dismiss an appeal which is presented beyond limitation. This is the general law of limitation. The exceptions are carved out under Sections 4 to 24 (inclusive) of the Limitation Act but we are concerned only with the exception contained in Section 5 which empowers the courts to admit an appeal even if it is preferred after the prescribed period provided the proposed appellant gives 'sufficient cause' for not preferring the appeal within the period prescribed. In other words, the courts are conferred with discretionary powers to admit an appeal even after the expiry of the prescribed period provided the proposed appellant is able to establish 'sufficient cause' for not filing it within time. The said power to condone the delay or to admit the appeal preferred after the expiry of time is discretionary in nature and may not be exercised even if sufficient cause is shown based upon host of other factors such as negligence, failure to exercise due diligence etc. (II) Courts are empowered to exercise discretion to condone the delay if sufficient cause had been explained, but that exercise of power is discretionary in nature and may not be exercised even if sufficient cause is established for various factors such as, where there is inordinate delay, negligence and want of due diligence; (III) Merely some persons obtained relief in similar matter, it does not mean that others are also entitled to the same benefit if the court is not satisfied with the cause shown for the delay in filing the appeal; (IV) Merits of the case are not required to be considered in condoning the delay; and (V) Delay condonation application has to be decided on the parameters laid down for condoning the delay and condoning the delay for the reason that the conditions have been imposed, tantamounts to disregarding the statutory provision.\" Considering the reasons for the delay and the facts of the case, the appellant has not provided a plausible explanation for the delay. Therefore, the delay in filing the appeal is not excused. Based on the above discussion, I am convinced that this case does not merit condonation of the delay. Consequently, the delay is not condoned, and the appeal is dismissed without addressing the merits of the grounds for appeal. 5. The appeal is dismissed.” The assessee being aggrieved is in further appeal before the Tribunal. 5 Swargiy Gopalrao Gawande Bahuudeshiy Sanstha Bhidi ITA no.457/Nag./2024 5. We have heard the learned Departmental Representative and perused the orders of the authorities below.The main issue in this appeal is dismissing the appeal by the NFAC without admitting the same on the reason that there was no \"sufficient cause\" for filing appeal belatedly before him. The delay was not bona fide and it was only on account of negligence on the part of assessee. The assessee has not made out a case of \"sufficient cause\" for filing the appeal belatedly and the inaction and negligence of the assessee would not constitute as a reasonable cause to file appeal belatedly before NFAC. Accordingly, appeal was dismissed. Against this, the assessee is in appeal before us. Thus, in the present case on viewing the reasons advanced by the assessee, in our opinion, there is no proper explanation from the assessee's side for filing the appeals belatedly before NFAC. It was the utmost duty of the assessee to keep track of this matter of filing appeal before NFAC and this gross negligence on the part of assessee to keep track of this important matter cannot constitute \"sufficient cause\" for inordinate delay within the meaning of section 253(5) of the Act. In other words, the assessee acted in a non-challant way with lackadaisical propensity for delay and the grounds on which condonation of delay has been sought, not only lack bona fides completely, but also, are not only fanciful and seems to be fully concocted on over all consideration of the facts and circumstances of this case. In view of the matter, we do not find any merit in the grounds raised by the assessee and we decline to entertain as such. Accordingly, all the grounds raised by the assessee are dismissed. 6 Swargiy Gopalrao Gawande Bahuudeshiy Sanstha Bhidi ITA no.457/Nag./2024 6. In the result, appeal filed by the assessee stands dismissed. Order pronounced in the open Court on 10/02/2025 Sd/- K.M. ROY ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Sd/- V. DURGA RAO JUDICIAL MEMBER NAGPUR, DATED: 10/02/2025 Copy of the order forwarded to: (1) The Assessee; (2) The Revenue; (3) The PCIT / CIT (Judicial); (4) The DR, ITAT, Nagpur; and (5) Guard file. True Copy By Order Pradeep J. Chowdhury Sr. Private Secretary Sr. Private Secretary ITAT, Nagpur "