TMI Blog2023 (8) TMI 915X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... .ito.exem@incometax.gov.in is about the show cause notice and there is no mail regarding order under section 271(1)(c) - CIT(A) has neither verified the facts pleaded by the assessee in his application of condonation of delay nor sought comment of assessing officer nor he verified the fact from e-mail of assessing officer, whether the impugned order was sent on registered e-mail or not. Thus, in absence of contrary evidence, we do not find any justification in rejecting the application for condonation of delay and in dismissing the appeal unadmitted. We further find that merit in the submission of assessee that assessee-trust were contesting all the proceedings in quantum assessment and ultimately succeeded. Therefore, there was no justi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Authorized Representative (Ld. AR) for the assessee submits that grounds of appeal raised by the assessee are squarely covered in favour of assessee and against the Revenue by the decision of this Tribunal in assessee s own case for assessment year 2013-14 in ITA No.272/SRT/2018 decided on 07.02.2020, wherein the addition in quantum assessment, on account of disallowance / denial of exemption under section 11 and disallowances of expenses was deleted. Therefore, the penalty levied by Assessing Officer and confirmed by NFAC/Ld. CIT(A) will not survive. The Ld. AR for the assessee submits that he has filed the copy of said decision of Hon'ble Co-ordinate Bench of this Tribunal (supra). 3. The ld AR for the assessee further submitted th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ded by assessee, however, neither the final order under section 271(1)(c) nor demand notice under section 156 was ever sent on the said registered e-mail of assessee. The Ld. AR for the assessee submits that he has already filed screenshot of the inbox of email of omconsultancy1963@yahoo.com at page No.26-28 of paper book. The Ld. AR for the assessee submits that assessee was contesting all proceedings, either in quantum assessment or in appeal before CIT(A) or Tribunal and assessee also contested penalty proceedings and there was no reason for the assessee, not to file the appeal in time, particularly when the assessee has succeeded in quantum assessment. Had the penalty order dated 29.03.2019 been served upon the assessee, the assessee ce ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 6. We find that during the pendency of appeal in quantum assessment before Tribunal, the Assessing Officer started penalty proceedings. The assessing officer issued show cause notice under section 274 r.w.s 271(1)(c) of the Act on 04.03.2019 and directed the assessee to file reply on or before 19.03.2019. Though, we find that assessing officer recorded that assessee has not filed any submission, yet he recorded that there was no provision in the Act to keep the impugned penalty proceedings in abeyance till the decision of Tribunal in quantum assessment. Such facts clearly suggest that the assessee responded to the show cause notice for proposed penalty and brought the facts in the notice of assessing officer that appeal in quantum asses ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the Act. We find that the Ld. CIT(A) has neither verified the facts pleaded by the assessee in his application of condonation of delay nor sought comment of assessing officer nor he verified the fact from e-mail of assessing officer, whether the impugned order was sent on registered e-mail or not. Thus, in absence of contrary evidence, we do not find any justification in rejecting the application for condonation of delay and in dismissing the appeal unadmitted. 9. We further find that merit in the submission of Ld. AR for the assessee that assessee-trust were contesting all the proceedings in quantum assessment and ultimately succeeded. Therefore, there was no justification in dismissing the application of condonation of delay when the a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... year was pending because as per chronology of events the assessee had already applied for registration u/s 12A on 03.03.2016 and the assessment order was passed on 15.03.2016. However, the registration u/s 12AA of the Act was granted on 28.03.2016 and the same was also produced during the First Appellate Authority. After having given the thoughtful consideration to the aforesaid facts and circumstances and also the observations of the Coordinate Bench of Tribunal, we are in agreement with the view taken therein by the Co-ordinate Benches. Thus, we find no reason to take different view, therefore, we are of the considered view that the first proviso of section 12A(2) as had been made available to the statute vide the Finance Act,No.2[2014], ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
