SHRI VITHOBA DEOSTHAN KHARIGAON TRUST,KHARIGAON vs. CIT, EXEMPTION, PUNE, PUNE

Considering the entire factual position as explained before us and also keeping in view, the principles laid down by Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Land Acquisition Collector Vs. Mst. Katiji& Ors., [1987] AIR 1353 (SC),wherein it has been held that where substantial justice is pitted against technicalities of non-deliberate delay, then in that eventuality substantial justice is to be preferred. In my view the principals of advancing substantial justice is of prime importance. Hence considering the explanation put forth by the Assessee by justifiably and properly explaining the delay which occurred in filing the appeal and construing the expression" sufficient cause" liberally we are inclined to condone the delay in filing the appeal before the Tribunal. Therefore we condone the delay and admit the appeal to be heard on merits.

From the records we noticed that the application filed by the assessee seeking regular registration was rejected on the ground that assessee had not complied with the provisions of Sec. 12AB(1)(b)(i) of the Act and had not submitted the required documents in this regard. It was specifically mentioned by Ld. AR that Ld. CIT(E) sought details with regard to the said application from time to time and finally notice dated 26.11.2024 was issued by Ld. CIT(E) calling for certain documents by 03.12.2024. However, assessee trust on 02.12.2024 submitted an online adjournment request for seeking further time till 18.12.2024 on the ground that the details sought were under preparation and the appellant was gathering the material from multiple sources. But Ld. CIT(E) ignoring the said online adjournment request, presuming failure on the part of the appellant to respond to the notice dated 26.11.2024 thus rejected the same. Therefore under these circumstances it was requested that the matter be restored to the file of Ld. CIT(E) for fresh adjudication on the application for grant of registration u/s 12AB of the Act.

On the other hand, Ld. DR relied upon the orders passed by the revenue authorities.

Be that as it may, without going into the merits of the issues raised by the assessee and considering the fact that the assessee had submitted an online adjournment request for further time, on the ground that the details sought were under preparation, however Ld. CIT(E) ignoring the said request, presumed failure on the part of the assessee to respond to the notice issued by Ld. CIT(E). Therefore in our view there was reasonable cause, because of which assessee could not file all the details before Ld. CIT(E). Hence the Bench is of the view that one more opportunity be given to the assessee to represent his case before Ld. CIT(E) by submitting the documents called for by Ld. CIT(E). Therefore considering the overall circumstances of the present case, we deem it proper to restore the matter back to the file of Ld. CIT(A) for deciding the matter afresh by providing adequate opportunity to the assessee. The assessee shall not seek any adjournment on frivolous grounds and shall remain cooperative during the course of proceedings.

Before parting, we make it clear that our decision to restore the matter back to the file of the Ld. CIT(E) shall in no way be construed as having any reflection or expression on the merits of the dispute which shall be adjudicated by the Ld. CIT(E) independently in accordance with law.

In the result the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes.

Since we have restore the matter in A.Y 2025-26 Back to the file of Ld. CIT(E) for adjudicating afresh the request grant of registration u/s 12AB of the Act on merits after providing adequate opportunity to the assessee. Therefore in these circumstances present appeal filed by the assessee bearing