TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2025 (5) TMI 1168
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....erved that the assessee has filed the appeals on 06.03.2023 & 14.03.2023 for the AYs 2017-18 & 2019-20 i.e. delayed by 1425 & 1036 days respectively and the assessee has made submissions for the delay which was reproduced at page 2 & 3 of the appellate order. Ld. JCIT (A) observed that the main contention of the assessee was that the assessee was under a bonafide belief that no appeal arises from an intimation dated 13.05.2020 u/s 143(1) of the Act and affidavits of the Trustee of the assessee and Chartered Accountant of the assessee were filed and thus pleaded that instant delay was not caused on account of malafide intention and gross negligence on the part of the assessee. However, ld. JCIT (A), after considering the submissions of the assessee and relying on various judgments, held that the delay of 1425 & 1036 days for AYs 2017-18 & 2019-20 respectively in filing of appeals is not condoned as no "sufficient cause" has been shown for the assessee's failure to file the appeals within the prescribed period of limitation and hence the appeals sought to be instituted belatedly are hereby not admitted and accordingly dismissed in limine. 3. At the time of hearing, ld. AR for the ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....d Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) that "the appellant has no furnished any plausible explanation for such delay. The appellant's submission that it was under bonafide belief that no appeal lies against intimation under section 143(1) is not having any substance. Firstly, ignorance of law is no excuse. Secondly, when the appellant has now filed the appeal after consulting the counsel this exercise could have been carried out at the time of receipt of intimation"" is not based on correct appreciation of facts on record and therefore unsustainable. 3 That the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) has also erred both in law and on facts in upholding the denial of claim of exemption of Rs. 14,31,437 u/s 11 and 12 of the Act. 3.1 That furthermore the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) has failed to appreciate that return of income was filed beyond the due date u/s 139(1) of the Act but prior to due date u/s 13 9(4) of the Act could not ipsofacto be made a basis to upheld the denial of claim of exemption u/s 11 and 12 of the Act 4 That the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) has erred both in law and on facts in upholding the i....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....by the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) may kindly be deleted and demand raised alongwith interest may kindly be held to be not tenable and not in accordance with law and appeal of the appeal of the appellant trust be allowed. In any case and without prejudice had the expenditure incurred alongwith depreciation been allowed as such, Income computed was excessive; and thus not in accordance with law. It be further held that the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) unjustifiable not condoning the delay in filing the appeal and therefore the delay in filing of the appeal may kindly be condoned u/s 249(3) of the Act and appeal of the appellant be allowed." 7. At the outset of the hearing, ld. AR of the assessee that the basis adopted to deny the claim of exemption of Rs. 14,31,437/- u/s 11 & 12 of the Act in intimation u/s 143(1) of the Act is as under :- "As per Section - 12A(1)(b) of Income tax Act read with 151 Proviso to Rule 12(2) of the Income Tax Rules, where the total income of the trust or institution without giving effect to the provisions of section 11 and section 12 exceeds the maximum amount which is not chargeable to income tax, the audit r....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....the audit report in Form 10B before the due date as per Rule 12A(1)(b) of the Rules. I observed that the above conditions of filing the Form 10B was relaxed by the CBDT in the earlier assessment years, therefore, it clearly shows that it is only directory in nature and not mandatory, since, it is in compliance with Rules framed for availing the benefit under the provisions of Section 11 and it is held that to be directory in nature. I noticed that assessee relied on the decision of Hon'ble Madras High Court in the case of Shri Chandraprabhuji Maharaj Jain Juna Mandir Trust (supra), wherein it is held as under: "8. As noted by us earlier, the assessee filed the return of income for the assessment year under consideration on 02.04.2009, which was processed and intimation under Section 143(1) of the Act was issued on 21.01.2011. Thus, there was no assessment under Section 143(3) of the Act. The assessee, while filing the petition under Section 154 of the Act, on 22.03.2011, pointed out that the assessee filed the Form No.10 along with the Board Resolution along with the covering letter dated 01.04.2019. However, the mistake done by the assessee was to file hard copies before ....