Loading judgment…
Facts
The assessee filed appeals against the CIT(E)'s order rejecting their application for registration under sections 12A and 80G. The appeals were filed with a delay of 39 days, which the assessee attributed to the unavailability of their counsel due to pregnancy. The CIT-DR objected to the condonation of delay.
Held
The Tribunal condoned the delay, finding sufficient cause for the delay and emphasizing the importance of giving a right to be heard. The Tribunal set aside the CIT(E)'s order and remitted the issue back to the CIT(E) for fresh adjudication after affording a reasonable opportunity to the assessee.
Key Issues
Whether the delay in filing the appeal should be condoned, and whether the assessee should be granted another opportunity to provide details for registration under sections 12A and 80G.
Sections Cited
12A, 80G
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Detected automatically from the text. The count shows how many other judgments on BharatTax rely on the same authority.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, DELHI BENCH: ‘G’ NEW DELHI
Before: SHRI ANUBHAV SHARMA & SHRI MANISH AGARWAL
O R D E R
PER MANISH AGARWAL, AM: These two appeals are filed by the assessee against the order of Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemptions), Chandigarh (‘the CIT(E) in short), dated 06.08.2024 rejecting the application for registration u/s 12A and 80G of the Act. As both the appeals are related to issue of registration u/s 12A and 80G, thus they are decided by a common order. 2. The appeal filed by the assessee is delayed by 39 days for which an affidavit along with condonation petition was filed by the President of the assessee Society namely Ms. Santushti Thapar wherein it is stated that it had engaged one CA Pooja Sharma to represent and file the necessary details before the ld. CIT(E). However, due to her pregnancy, she could not be able to file the appeals within time. Under these facts and circumstances, it is requested that the delay in filing the appeal be condoned and both the appeals be admitted for adjudication. Reliance is also placed on the judgement of
2 IT Nos.5703 & 5704/Del/2024 Shree Rama Rajaya Parishad vs. CIT Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Collector, Land Acquisition Vs. Mst. Katiji (1987) 167 ITR 471 (SC).
On the other hand, Ld. CIT-DR objected to the condonation of delay in the filing of the appeal.
Heard both the parties. From the perusal of the affidavit filed by the assessee and the reasons stated therein, we find that there is sufficient and reasonable cause with the assessee for filing the appeal with in prescribed time limit. It must be remembered that in every case of delay there can be some lapse on the part of the litigant concerned. That alone is not enough to turn down the plea and to shut the doors against it. If the explanation does not smack of mala fide or it is not put-forth as a part of dilatory strategy, the Courts must take utmost consideration to such litigant and right of hearing of the appeal on merit ought not to be shut. Looking to these facts, we condoned the delay in filing both the appeals and admit them for adjudication.
Before us, the Ld. AR of the assessee submitted assessee had filed application for registration u/s. 12A and 80G of the Act before the ld. CIT(E). It was the submission that the notices issued by ld. CIT(E) to produce specific information however, due to the ill health of the counsel for the assessee, the same could not be filed. It was the submission that it was in this backdrop that the ld. CIT(E) rejected both the applications filed by the assessee. Ld. AR prayed that the appellant trust may be granted one more opportunity to produce the required details as called for by the ld. CIT(E) for granting registration u/s.12A and 80G of the Act.
On the other hand, the Ld. CIT-DR objected to the request of the assessee and supported the order of the Ld. CIT(E).
We have considered the rival submissions. Ld. CIT(Exemption), Chandigarh has rejected the applications filed by assessee for non- compliance. A perusal of the impugned order of ld. CIT(E), Chandigarh clearly shows that notices were issued to the assessee to furnish the detailed reply on the specific information called for. However, the appellant society failed to furnish the 3 IT Nos.5703 & 5704/Del/2024 Shree Rama Rajaya Parishad vs. CIT same, for which, the registration u/s. 12A and 80G were rejected by the ld. CIT(E). Now, ld. AR submits that the appellant society has all the evidences as sought by ld. CIT(E) and will be produced if the matter is remanded back to the file of ld. CIT(E). We are of the view that proper opportunity of being heard was not provided to the assessee and hence, in the interest of justice, we set aside the order of CIT(E) and remit the issue back to the file of the CIT(E), to decide the applications of the assessee a fresh after affording reasonable opportunity to the assessee. Assessee is also directed to file all the details and evidences in support of the application filed for registration u/s 12A and 80G of the Act. In view of above, both the appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes.
In the result, both the appeals of the assesse are partly allowed. Order pronounced in the open Court on 25.06.2025.