TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2025 (6) TMI 1626
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....d. Addl./Joint CIT(A)") passed u/s 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act") for AY 2020-21 dated 04.09.2024, which has been passed against the intimation u/s 143(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the "Act"), dated 23.11.2021. 2. The ITAT Registry has pointed out that there is a delay of 83 days in filing of this appeal. The assessee has filed an application for condoning the delay as under: "1. That your petitioner filed an appeal before the Ld. CIT(A) against the intimation order passed by the A.O., CPC u/s 143(1) dated 23.11.2021 for the A.Y.: 2020-2021. 2. That the Ld. CIT(A), NFAC dismissed the appeal of your petitioner vide an order dated 04.09.2024. 3....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ing appeal before this Ld. Tribunal may kindly be condoned and the case be heard on merits or such order/orders be passed as this Ld. Tribunal deems fit and proper." 3. Considering the reasons for delay as mentioned above, the delay is hereby condoned and the appeal is admitted for adjudication. 4. The grounds of appeal raised by the assessee are reproduced as under: "1. For that the Ld. CIT(A) was not justified in not condoning delay in filing appeal before him though there was a reasonable cause for the delay. 2. Without prejudice to the above grounds, the Ld. CIT(A) ought to have admitted the appeal and disposed of the same on merit adjudicating various grounds of appeal taken before him. 3. For that, on ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... of income 139(1) of the Act and the audit report was filed late. Subsequently, while processing the return, the CPC on 23.11.2021 disallowed the expenses and the claim of application of income and the exemption was denied. 6. Aggrieved with the intimation, the assessee filed an appeal before the ld CIT(A), which was filed with a delay of 767 days. The assessee claimed before the ld CIT(A) in Form No.35 Column 2(c) that the intimation u/s. 143(1) of the Act was served on 29.12.2023 but the appellant also claimed that the intimation u/s 143(1) was served on the portal on 23.11.2021 which was not seen by the appellant, therefore, there was contradiction in the statement. The appeal should have been filed on or before 23/12/2021 according t....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....efore, the disallowance of exemption claimed u/s. 11 of the Act cannot be denied. It was also submitted that when the assessee has filed the return u.s.139(4) of the Act, the department has not held it to be a defective return u/s. 139(9) of the Act but has processed the same by accepting the revenue and capital expenditure though denying the claim u/s. 11 of the Act and the entire receipt has been computed as income and the adjustment could only be made in one of the specific adjustments specified in section 143(1) of the Act. The assessee further placed reliance on the following judicial pronouncements: 1) Packers (India) Vs. ITO (2006) 99 ITD 383 (ITAT Ahd) 2) CIT vs Pesticides India Ltd. 283 ITR 304 (Raj.) 3) ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....f Ajay Dabra vs Pyare Ram & Others (SC) No. 15793 of 2019 dated 31.1.2023, which appears at page 17 of the order of ld. CIT(A). A copy of the written submission filed before the ld CIT(A) has also been enclosed. It was requested to allow the exemption claimed while the Ld. DR requested that the order of the Ld. CIT(A) may be upheld. 10. We have considered the rival submissions and have also gone through the facts of the case, the submission made and the documents filed. We find that the assessee had not been granted the exemption under section 11 as there was delay in filing the audit report u/s. 10B of the Act but the same was available at the time of processing of the return. In this respect, Hon'ble Jurisdictional High court in the ca....