9911796707
TMI Blog2022 (9) TMI 87X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he AO, ld. DCIT-CPC, Ghaziabad (hereinafter referred as the Ld. AO). 2. Brief facts of the case are that the assessee is a society running an educational Institution under the name and style of Indraprastha Public School. The Income tax return for A.Y. 2015-2016 was filed on 25.03.2016. Assessee claims that in Part A -GEN (Personal Information) of ITR-7 it was clearly mentioned that this society is exempt u/s 10(23C)(iiiad). Further in Para B of other details it is also mentioned that it is eligible for exemption u/s 10(23C((iiiad) as its aggregate annual receipts is below Rs. 1 crore (i.e. Rs. 8553876/-). Further in reply to a question in Part C of other details of ITR-7 It is clearly mentioned that the society is not registered u/s 12A. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nt from the records was filed wherein it is clearly mentioned that the income of the trust is exempt u/s 10(23C)(iiiad) of the Income Tax Act 1961 being an educational institution solely for educational purpose gross receipts of which does not exceed Rs. 1 crore but that application was summarily rejected by the CPC Bangalore and order of rejection was received by the assessee on 16.02.2018. 3. However, the ld CIT(A) dismissed the appeal of the Assessee with the following order held as under:- "2.1 Admittedly, the appellant received the order u/s 143(1) on 01.11,2016. Thus, there is unjustifiable delay of more than 1 year in filing the appeal. It is also noted that appellant preferred application u/s 253(5) which is not maintainable befo ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... zation is duly reflected with Nil income clearly proving the mistake. 5. Therefore, it is very respectfully prayed that this court may kindly be pleased to set aside the order under question with the direction deemed fit to CIT(A) to hear matter on merits." 5. Heard and perused the record. The Ld. Counsel for the Assessee relied upon the judgments/ orders of the Hon'ble Allahabad High Court in the case of Subhash Malik Vs. CIT, Meerut (2010) 325 ITR 243, M/s. Bangalore Metro Rail Corporation Ltd Vs. DCIT, Bangalore in ITA No. 1111/bang/2019 to contend that the ld. CIT(A) has been harsh to apply the stringent provision of limitation without taking into consideration the merit of the ground. Ld DR however, stood with the findings of ld tax ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
