TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2024 (10) TMI 25
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
..... 3. That the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) erred in law and on facts in not condoning the delay in filing the appeal before CIT(A) even though there was sufficient and reasonable cause for such delay. 4. That the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) erred in law and on facts in not considering the appellant's response to the demand as action against the intimation issued u/s 143(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 ("the Act"). 5. That the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) erred in law and on facts in not considering the COVID period in the period of delay as sufficient and reasonable cause. 6. That the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) erred in law and on facts in not deciding the case on merits 7. That the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) ought to have allowed deduction u/s 11(1)(a) of the Act at 15% on gross receipts. 8. That the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) erred in law and on facts in not allowing the set off of brought forward deficit from earlier years against the current year surplus. Each of the above grounds is without prejudice to one another and the appellant craves leave of the Hon....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... to be allowed exemption while processing the return of income u/s. 143(1). The CPC should have considered the exemption claimed by the assessee. He requested that the matter may be remitted back for fresh consideration. The assessee relied on the following 3 judgments:- i) CIT (Exemption) v. Subros Educational Society [2018] 96 taxmann.com 652 (SC ii) CIT v. Programme for Community Organisation (2001) 116 Taxman 608 (SC) iii) Sri Shridevi Charitable Trust v. DCIT(E) in ITA No.226/Bang/2022 dated 10.6.2022. 7. The ld. DR relied on the order of the CIT(Appeals) and CPC. He submitted that the CIT(Appeals) has not condoned the delay is correct view. The assessee should have filed appeal within due date as per section 249(3) of the Act. The reasons for delay is also not reasonable cause for filing appeal late. Whenever intimation is generated it is immediately sent to the assessee by email. If the assessee was not satisfied from the processing of return, either he may approach for rectification u/s 154 or may appeal before the FAA. But, here the assessee filed appeal with delay which is not reasonable cause. 8. Considering the rival submissions, the ld. FAA has dismissed the ap....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ble Madras High Court thus condoned nearly 21 years of delay in filing the appeal. As compared to 21 years, delay of about 1000 to 2000 days cannot be considered to be inordinate or excessive. 9. Hon'ble Madras High Court in the case of Sreenivas Charitable Trust reported in 280 ITR 357 held that, no hard and fast rule can be laid down in the matter of condonation of delay and the Court should adopt a pragmatic approach and the Court should exercise their discretion on the facts of each case keeping in mind that in construing the expression "sufficient cause" the principle of advancing substantial justice is of prime importance and the expression "sufficient cause" should receive a liberal construction. Therefore, this Judgment of the Hon'ble Madras High Court (supra) clearly says that in order to advance substantial justice which is of prime importance, the expression sufficient cause" should receive a liberal construction. Therefore, for the purpose of advancing substantial justice which is of prime importance in the administration of justice, the expression "sufficient cause" should receive a liberal construction. In opinion of this Tribunal, this decision of Hon'bl....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ssessee has raised the grounds of appeal as under:- "1. That the order of the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) in so far it is prejudicial to the interests of the appellant, is bad and erroneous in law and against the facts and circumstances of the case. 2. That the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) erred in law and on facts in not providing an opportunity of being heard by way of video conferencing even after a specific request was made during the appellate proceedings and such action is in violation of principles of natural justice. 3. That the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) erred in law and on facts in not allowing exemption u/s 11 and 12 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 ("the Act") on the grounds that Form 10B was not filed within time even though it was filed within the due date. 4. That the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) ought to have appreciated that the exemption u/s 11 and 12 of the Act was denied on the ground that registration u/s 12A of the Act was not disclosed in return of income and therefore, ought to have verified the same. 5. That the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) erred in law and on facts in not provi....