ORAL ORDER
Learned counsel Sri. Aravind V. Chavan accepts notice for respondent No.1. Learned counsel Sri. E.I. Sanmathi accepts notice for respondents No.2 and 3.
2. The petitioner has called in question the validity of the intimation under Section 143(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short 'IT Act') issued by respondent No.1. It is the case of the petitioner that the petitioner being an Apartment Owners Association receiving maintenance charges and other charges from members who are the apartment owners. It is further submitted that the amount collected towards maintenance is not chargeable under principles of mutuality. It is submitted that the amount received being exempt, by oversight no declaration was made under the appropriate column showing the amount as exempt income. It is submitted that subsequently the matter has been taken up by the revenue and it is culminated in the intimation under Section 143(1) of the IT Act.
- 4 -
3. It is submitted that due to certain bona-fide reasons, the petitioner came to know of the demands that were subsequently raised pursuant to the intimation belatedly. It is further submitted that taking note of the amount is exempt income, this Court may set aside the impugned intimations and consequential demands.
4. Learned counsel appearing for the respondents would submit that it is the lapse on part of the petitioner who has not made appropriate entries in the relevant columns in the returns filed, which has resulted in the present situation and it is further submitted as the orders having been passed in the year 2020, the petitioner may be relegated to avail of the Appellate remedy.
5. Insofar as the assertion that the amount collected towards maintenance is exempt income, prima- facie respondents are not unable to controvert such assertion. However, taking note of the delay, it would be appropriate to remit the matter back to First Appellate
- 5 -
Authority. In light of the explanation made from paragraph No.20 onwards as regards the aspect of delay, it would be appropriate to pass appropriate orders as below:
i) The petitioner is relegated to the First Appellate Authority as against the orders at Annexures-E and F.
ii) Insofar as the aspect of delay, taking note of the reasons assigned, it would be appropriate to order that if appeal is within 30 days from the date of receipt of certified copy of the order, the appeal would be taken up without raising any objection as regards delay. Such order is passed taking note that the statutory authorities have certain constraints in condoning delay while accepting the bonafideness of the explanation of delay as made herein.
6. In the event, the authorities are to take any coercive steps and the petitioner seeks for stay of the orders, the authority while considering the application for stay and deposit to be made is to take note of the assertion of the petitioner that the income is exempt in an
- 6 -
appropriate manner. All contentions on merits are kept open.
7. Accordingly, petition is disposed of, reserving liberty as observed above.
Sd/-
(S SUNIL DUTT YADAV)
JUDGE
MCR