THE SHIV SHAKTI EDUCATIONAL SOCIETY,SONEPAT V. ITO EXEMPTION, ROHTAK

ITA 1050/DEL/2024

AI Insights

The case involves The Shiv Shakti Educational Society, which appealed against the order of the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals), Visakhapatnam, concerning a delay in filing an appeal against an order passed under section 143(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The primary contention was the dismissal of their appeal due to a significant delay of seven years, which the assessee attributed to their ongoing rectification application. The Tribunal found merit in the assessee's argument, noting that the pending rectification application could have led to a reasonable belief that the issue was still under consideration, thus justifying the delay.

• Counselvise Citation: [2025] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 126557 (ITAT-DELHI)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 22-04-2025
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: E
• Assessment Year: 2014-2015
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act, 1961
• Result in Favour of: Matter Remanded
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: AMIT KATOCH
• Assessee Lawyers: PRIYANSHU SINGHAL; MANSI JAIN
• Keywords: Revised return; Period of limitation; Competent authority; Time period of passing order; Dismissed; Commissioner; Statistical purposes; Exempt; ITES; Bona fide
• Section: 154; 143(1)

Judgement Text

" IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCHES: E : NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI S. RIFAUR RAHMAN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI ANUBHAV SHARMA, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA No.1050/Del/2024 Assessment Year: 2014-15 The Shiv Shakti Educational Society, Mehlana Road, Sonepat, Haryana – 131 001. PAN: AADAT7095C Vs ITO, Exemption, Rohtak. (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee by : Shri Priyanshu Singhal, CA & Ms Mansi Jain, CA Revenue by : Shri Amit Katoch, Sr. DR Date of Hearing : 22.04.2025 Date of Pronouncement : 22.04.2025 ORDER PER ANUBHAV SHARMA, JM: This appeal is preferred by the Assessee against the order dated 19.01.2024 of the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals), Visakhapatnam (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Ld. FAA’, for short), in Appeal No.NFAC/2013- 14/10223639 arising out of the appeal before it against the order dated 16.03.2016 passed u/s 143(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred ITA No.1050/Del/2024 2 to as ‘the Act’) by the DCIT, Centralized Processing Centre, Bengaluru (hereinafter referred to as the Ld. AO). 2. On hearing both the sides, we find that the assessee has primarily raised grounds No.1 and 2 on the basis that the appeal of the assessee was dismissed by the ld.CIT(A) by not condoning the delay. The ld. DR has submitted that the delay was of extremely long and unjustified period of seven years. The ld. AR has defended the same submitting that the assessee was diligently contesting the issue by way of filing a rectification application. 3. We find that the assessee had filed a revised return of income and an application u/s 154 of the Act before the competent authority. The appellant society is an educational society having gross receipt of less than Rs.1 crore and, as such, exemption u/s 10(23C)(iiad) of the Act is claimed by the assessee. It was submitted before the ld.CIT(A) that under the bona fide belief the assessee has filed revised return and has also filed a rectification application for deleting the demand, the appeal was not preferred. Admittedly, as per the order of the ld.CIT(A), the rectification application was not decided even after four years. In the instant case, order u/s 143(1) was passed on 16.03.2016. Thus, the four year period from the end of relevant financial year ended on 30.03.2020. The ld.CIT(A) admites that no order u/s 154 of the Act can be passed after the expiry of four years but for that ld. CIT(A) somehow holds assessee at prejudice ITA No.1050/Del/2024 3 by observing that assessee should have not waited for its disposal till limitation or thereafter. 4. We are of the considered view that this limitation period is a sort of embargo on the powers of the assessing authority, so that rectification is not carried out after four years. However, where a rectification application is filed by the assessee then that certainly required to be adjudicated in a reasonable time. Keeping it pending certainly gives the assessee a bona fide belief that the grievance raised is under consideration and will be redressed at the level of rectification only. 5. Thus, in the facts and circumstances, though the appeal was delayed by almost seven years, but, certainly the indulgence was required by the ld.CIT(A) to ensure that the ends of justice are met by taking cognizance of the bona fide belief of the assessee society. Thus, in the facts and circumstances, we are inclined to allow the grounds No.1 and 2 and restore the issue on merits to the files of the ld.CIT(A) with a direction to condone the delay and decide the issue afresh giving due opportunity of hearing to the assessee. The appeal is allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced in the open court on 22.04.2025. Sd/- Sd/- (S. RIFAUR RAHMAN) (ANUBHAV SHARMA) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER Dated: 22nd April, 2025. ITA No.1050/Del/2024 4 dk Copy forwarded to: 1. Appellant 2. Respondent 3. CIT 4. CIT(A) 5. DR Asstt. Registrar, ITAT, New Delhi "