INDIAN EX-DEFENSE SERVICE EMPLOYEE CHAMBERS OF COMMERCE AND INDUSTRIES,MUMBAI vs. THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, PUNE

PDF · subscribers
ITA 382/PUN/2023Status: DisposedITAT Pune27 October 20234 pages

In favour of the assessee: the assessee's appeal was allowed. From the AI summary of this appeal.

AI SummaryAllowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal and restored all substantive grounds to the CIT(Exemption) for fresh adjudication. The assessee was directed to ensure necessary compliance within three opportunities of hearing.

What were the facts?

The assessee filed an appeal against the CIT(Exemption)'s order rejecting its Section 12A registration application due to a delay of 12 days. The Revenue argued that the delay should be calculated from an earlier rejection order dated July 18, 2019, which the assessee claimed was not properly intimated.

What were the issues?

Whether the delay in filing the appeal should be computed from the initial rejection order or the subsequent intimation, and whether the CIT(Exemption) properly considered the assessee's objects.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 12AA(1)(b)(ii)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, PUNE “A” BENCH : PUNE

Before: SHRI SATBEER SINGH GODARA & SHRI GD PADMAHSHALI

Hearing: 16.10.2023Pronounced: 27.10.2023

ORDER PER SATBEER SINGH GODARA, J.M. :

This assessee’s appeal arises against the CIT(Exemption), Pune’s Order No.ITBA/EXM/S/EXM1/2019- 20/1016848178(1), dated 18.07.2019, involving proceedings u/s.12AA(1)(b)(ii) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short “the Act”). Heard both the parties at length. Case file perused.

2.

It emerges at the outset that the assessee had filed the instant appeal on 05.04.2023 against CIT(E) “alleged”

2 ITA.No.382/PUN./2023 order dated 23.11.2021 rejecting it’s sec.12A registration application involving delay in filing of 12 days. It had also placed on record it’s condonation petition/affidavit explaining the said delay.

3.

The Revenue thereafter appears to have raised a preliminary objection regarding the CIT(E) impugned order dated 23.11.2021 that the same nowhere has triggered a valid locus standi in assessee’s favour as it had merely made clear that the foregoing sec.12A registration application already stood rejected way back on 18.07.2019 and therefore, the impugned delay ought to be computed from the said former date. The assessee appears to have not only calculated the impugned delay in very terms but also revised Form-36 indicating the CIT(E) impugned order has passed in terms of his former dated 18.07.2019.

4.

A perusal of the CIT(E) said former order suggests that the assessee had e-filed it’s application on 07.01.2019. The CIT(E) thereafter issued show cause dated 06.02.2019 which allegedly remained non-complied. We wish to reiterate that both the parties are on issue regarding the actual service of the said notice. Be that as it may, the assessee admittedly did not file any reply thereto which culminated in the CIT(E)’s order dated 18.07.2019 holding therein that he is not satisfied about it’s charitable activities. Learned CIT-DR further sought

3 ITA.No.382/PUN./2023 to buttress the point that the CIT(E) had also issued yet another notice dated 14.07.2019 which also has not complied with. And this resulted in the CIT(E) former impugned order dated 18.07.2019 which ultimately was informed by way of his office(s) second order letter dated 23.11.2021.

5.

We have given our thoughtful consideration to the foregoing relevant facts. The assessee has also filed it’s multiple condonation petitions inter alia averring therein that the CIT(E)’s 2019 order was never intimated and therefore, the impugned delay deserve to be computed from the latter intimation dated 23.11.2021. We make it clear that although the Revenue has taken strong exceptions to assessee’s pleadings; the fact remains that CIT(E) has nowhere considered even the assessee’s objects whilst rejecting it’s impugned application. Faced with the situation, we condone the assessee’s delay in filing of the instant appeal and restore its all of substantive grounds back to CIT(E) for his afresh appropriate adjudication as per law, preferably within three effective opportunities of hearing. This is indeed coupled with a rider that it shall be the assessee’s duty and responsibility only to ensure necessary compliance within the specified number of opportunities and file all the relevant details at it’s own risk and responsibility. Ordered accordingly.

4 ITA.No.382/PUN./2023 6. This assessee’s appeal is allowed for statistical purposes.

Order pronounced in the open Court on 27.10.2023.

More judgments on Section 12AA(1)(b)(ii)

All 94 judgments and leading authorities on Section 12AA(1)(b)(ii) →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →