Hon'ble Judges/Coram:
Waseem Ahmed, Member (A) and Siddhartha Nautiyal ORDER
Siddhartha Nautiyal, Member (J)
1. This assessee's appeal for A.Y. 2014-15, arises from order of the National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi dated 29-10-2021, in DIN & Order No. ITBA/NFAC/S/250/2021-22/1036661990(1), proceedings under section 143(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961; in short "the Act".
2. The assessee has taken the following grounds of appeal:-
"1. The learned Commissioner (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi erred is dismissing appeal of the Appellant in limine.
2. The learned Commissioner (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi erred in holding that the appellant has no reason for delay in filing of appeal.
3. The learned Commissioner (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi erred in holding that no reply was filed by the Appellant within timelines provided as adjournment applications were filed by the Appellant in response to notices u/s. 250 issued, which were not rejected by the CIT(A)
4. The learned commissioner (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi, on merits, erred in upholding action of the CPC in making adjustments to the returned income of the Appellant by denying benefit of sec. 11 of Rs. 4,01,053/- claimed in the return of income filed for the year.
5. The appellant craves leave to add, amend, alter and withdraw any ground of appeal anytime up to the hearing of this appeal.
Total tax effect 1,23,925/-
3. The brief facts of the case are that the return of income was filed by the assessee on 12-03-2016 declaring total income of ` Nil in the status of AOP (Trust), after claiming deduction under section 11 of the Act. Intimation under section 143 (1) of the Act dated 12-03-2016 was issued by CPC, Bangalore computing income of ` 2,73,857/- by way of not granting deduction claimed under section 11 of the Act. By way of the aforesaid intimation, the DCIT made adjustments by not giving deduction of ` 4,01,053/- claimed by the assessee under section 11 of the Act.
4. The assessee filed appeal against the aforesaid additions, which were dismissed by Ld. CIT (Appeals) with the following observations:
"3. In this case, the intimation order u/s. 143(1) was issued on 12.03.2016, which is claimed to be received on 12.03.2016 as mentioned in Form no. 35. The appeal has been filed on 03.06.2020 from which it is apparently clear that there is delay of more than 4 years in filing of appeal. However, no explanation or reason has been given for delay in filing appeal. Even during the appellate proceedings various opportunities were provided by issue of notices on 29.12.2020, 05.10.2021, 14.10.2021 and 21.10.2021 but there was no reply filed by the appellant. The timelines provided in the statute are for strict adherence. In the absence of any compliance on the part of appellant, it is held that the appellant has no reason for delay in filing of appeal. In view of the above facts, appeal stands dismissed in limine."
5. The assessee is in appeal before us against the aforesaid order passed by Ld. CIT (Appeals). The assessee produced before us copies of adjournment letters filed before Ld. CIT (Appeals) seeking time to present its case on merits. However, Ld. CIT (Appeals) dismissed the assessee's appeal in limine, without making any mention of the adjournment applications filed by ........