JOHARI LAL SHIVRAJ GOTAM BOHRA CHARITABLE TRUST,PALI vs. CIT (EXEMPTION), JAIPUR
No AI summary yet for this case.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, JODHPUR BENCH: JODHPUR.
Before: DR. M. L. MEENA & SH. ANIKESH BANERJEE
IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL JODHPUR BENCH: JODHPUR. BEFORE DR. M. L. MEENA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SH. ANIKESH BANERJEE, JUDICIAL MEMBER
I.T.A. Nos. 189 to 190/Jodh/2023 Assessment Year.: 2023-24 Johari Lal Shivraj Gotam Bohra Vs. Commissioner of Income Charitable Trust F-308/A, Tax, (Exemptions),Jaipur. Mandia Road, Pali. [PAN: AADTJ6367N] (Respondent) (Appellant)
Appellant by Sh.Goutam Chand Baid, CA. Respondent by Sh. Shailendra Sharma, CIT. DR Date of Hearing 22.11.2023 Date of Pronouncement 06.12.2023 ORDER Per:Anikesh Banerjee, J.M.:
Both the instant appeals of the same assessee are directed against the order
of the ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemptions), Jaipur,[in brevity the ‘CIT (E)’], order passed u/s 12AB & 80G of the Income Tax Act 1961, [in brevity the Act].
I.T.A. Nos. 189 to 190/Jodh/2023 Assessment Year.: 2023-24 2
The AR mentioned that the appeal is filed with a delay of 148 days. The
petition for condonation of delay with affidavit, are filed and the delay is duly
explained. The ld. AR mentioned that by technical error in fresh filing of appeal,
there remains no other option to revive the earlier appeal. The delay has occurred
to file the appeal before the bench. The ld. DR had not made any strong objection
against the assessee. Accordingly, the delay for 148 days is condoned.
At the outset both the appeals are related to application for registration u/s
12A(1)(ac)(iii) and u/s 80G(5) of the Act of the same assessee.
Considering both the parties ITA No. 189/Jodh/2023 is taken as lead case.
The assessee has taken the following grounds:
“1. That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, ld. CIT(E), Jaipur erred in rejection the application filed by appellant u/s 12A(1)(ac)(iii) of the Income Tax Act 1961. Necessary direction may kindly be issued to grant registration u/s 12AB.
The appellant crave liberty to add, amend, alter, modify, or delete any of the ground of appeal on or before its hearing before your honour. Assessee prays for justice..”
I.T.A. Nos. 189 to 190/Jodh/2023 Assessment Year.: 2023-24 3
Brief fact of the case is that the assessee was allowed the provisional
registration u/s 12A(1)(ac)(vi) for A/y 2022-23 to 2024-25. Further, applications
were filed for final registration U/s. 12A(1)(ac)(iii) and 80Gof the Act for
registration of assessee-trust. But both the applications of the assessee are rejected
by the ld. CIT(E) by the ex parte orders. The ground of rejections
arenoncompliance of hearing notices by the assessee and the application Form
10AB was incomplete and lack of supporting documentation. The ld. AR
mentioned that the assessee was ready to submit the documents but due to the
technical glitches the documents are unable to submit. Accordingly, the assessee
filed grievance letter to system. But remained unsuccessful. Being dissatisfied with
the order the appeal is filed before us.
The ld. AR filed written submission which is kept in record. The ld. AR
vehemently argued and placed that the assessee was ready to file Form 10A in
fresh, but the system was showing ‘error’. Thenoncompliance is due to the
technical glitch which the assessee was unable to recover. The copies of letter filed
before the DIT (system) for system error in preferring fresh application APB,
pages 3 to 4 and communication to revenue authority for non-accepting the fresh
I.T.A. Nos. 189 to 190/Jodh/2023 Assessment Year.: 2023-24 4
application, APB pages 5-8. The ld. AR prayed to remand back the matter for
reconsideration.
The ld. DR vehemently argued and relied on the order of the revenue
authority.
We heard the rival submission and considered the documents available in
record. The assessee is registered under provisional registration U/s u/s
12A(1)(ac)(vi). The application of final registration and application of 80G are
rejected. The assessee was non-complied during the hearing before the ld. CIT(E).
On perusal of the documents, we find that the action taken by assessee for filing
fresh application after the order of the ld. CIT(E) which are not so relevant before
the bench. But the assessee was not silent about its right and was in legal action.
8.1 In our considered view the reasonable opportunity was denied for the
assessee for submission of his evidence. We are, therefore, of the opinion that
interest of justice would be sub served if the impugned order is set aside and the
matters are remitted back to the file of the ld. CIT(E) for consideration thereof
afresh. We are not expressing any views on the merits of the case so as to limit the
proceeding before the ld. CIT(E). Further, the assessee should be diligent and
I.T.A. Nos. 189 to 190/Jodh/2023 Assessment Year.: 2023-24 5
complied the notice of the revenue. Needless to say, the assessee should get a
reasonable opportunity of hearing for setting aside proceedings.
As both the appeals are same nature and fact. So, ITA No 189/Jodh/2023 is
mutatis mutandis applicable to the ITA No. 190/Jodh/2023 and followed
accordingly.
In the result, the appeal of the assessee bearing ITA Nos.
189&190/Jodh/2023 are allowed for statistical purposes.
Order pronounced on 06.12.2023 at Amritsar, Punjab in accordance with Rule 34(4) of the Income tax (Appellate Tribunal) Rules, 1963.
Sd/- Sd/-
(Dr. M. L. Meena) (ANIKESH BANERJEE) Accountant Member Judicial Member
Copy of the order forwarded to: (1)The Appellant (2) The Respondent (3) The CIT (4) The DR, I.T.A.T.
