Gourishankar Education Society Vs ITO Exemption (ITAT Pune)
In a consolidated order dated 12th June 2024, the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT), Pune Bench “A”, comprising Shri R.K. Panda (Vice President) and Shri Satbeer Singh Godara (Judicial Member), adjudicated upon eight appeals filed by Gourishankar Education Society for Assessment Years 2013-14 to 2016-17 (ITA Nos. 1405 to 1412/PUN/2023). The appeals comprised four quantum matters under section 147 read with section 144 (for A.Ys. 2013-14 to 2016-17) and four corresponding penalty matters under section 271(1)(c). The assessee contended that the assessments were framed ex-parte due to disputes within its managing committee, which led to communication gaps between the society’s office, auditors, and counsel. As a result, there were delays in filing appeals and non-compliance before the lower authorities. The CIT(A)/NFAC had not only refused to condone the delays in filing appeals but had also upheld the ex-parte assessment orders on merits. The assessee, through its counsel Shri Kishor B. Phadke, sought one more opportunity to present its case before the lower authorities. The Revenue, represented by Shri Ramnath P. Murkunde, defended the ex-parte proceedings, citing the assessee’s persistent non-appearance. Upon hearing both sides and examining the case records, the Tribunal held that in the interest of substantial justice, especially in light of the Supreme Court’s landmark judgment in Collector Land Acquisition v. Mst. Katiji (1987) 167 ITR 471 (SC), procedural technicalities should not override the cause of justice. Accordingly, the Tribunal restored the four quantum appeals (ITA Nos. 1405, 1407, 1409 & 1411/PUN/2023) to the CIT(A)/NFAC for fresh adjudication in accordance with section 250(6) of the Act. The assessee was granted three effective opportunities to substantiate its case. Since the penalty appeals (ITA Nos. 1406, 1408, 1410 & 1412/PUN/2023) were consequential to the quantum proceedings, they were also allowed for statistical purposes. The Tribunal made it clear that no other grounds were argued, and a copy of the common order was directed to be placed in each appeal file.
