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

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL
“F” BENCH MUMBAI

BEFORE HON’BLE SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN, JUDICIAL MEMBER &
HON’BLE SHRI OMKARESHWAR CHIDARA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER
&
Shri
Vithoba
Deosthan
Kharigaon Trust
Kharigaon, Post Kalwa, Tal.
& Dist Thane, Thane
Vs.
CIT(E)
Thane
6th Floor, Room No. 18
Ashar IT Park, Wagle
Estate,
Thane
–
400
604
PAN/GIR No. AAETS5678J
(Applicant)
(Respondent)

Assessee by Shri Subodh Ratnaparkhi
Revenue by Shri Vivek Prampurna, CIT(DR)

Date of Hearing
26.11.2025
Date of Pronouncement
02.12.2025

आदेश / ORDER

PER SANDEEP GOSAIN, JM:

These two appeals have been filed by the assessee challenging the different impugned orders dated
07.12.2024 and 18.07.2025 respectively passed u/s 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (‘the Act’), by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemption), Pune for the SAME assessment year 2025-26. 2. Since all the issues involved in these two appeals are common and identical and belongs to one assessee therefore, they have been clubbed, heard together and consolidated order is being passed. Firstly we shall take
ITA No. 6100/Mum/2025, A.Y 2025-26 as lead case and facts narrated therein.
ITA No. 6100/Mum/2025, A.Y 2025-26
The assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal:
1. The Hon. CIT (Exemption) erred in rejecting and thereby refusing to grant registration u/s 12A of the IT Act, 1961, to the appellant trust as well as cancelling the provisional registration earlier granted u/s 12AB on 24.09.2021, for the ostensible reason that the appellant trust had not complied with the notice dt 26.11.2024 by the given date of 03.12.2024, ignoring the adjournment request of the assessee uploaded on the IT portal, on 02.12.2024 seeking further time and therefore the action of the Hon. CIT(Exemption) in rejecting the application was not justified and hence may kindly be overturned and set aside.
2. The order passed by the Hon. CIT (Exemption) in Form no.
10AD on 07.12.2024, rejecting the application filed by the appellant for granting of registration u/s 12A as well as cancelling the provisional registration earlier granted u/s 12AB on 24.09.2021, be set aside and the Hon.
CIT(Exemption) be directed to consider the said application on merits.
The appellant craves leave to add, alter, amend and/or vary any of the above grounds of appeal at any time before the decision of the appeal.
3. At the very outset, we noticed that there is delay of 152 days in filing present appeal and in this regard an by the assessee, wherein it has been mentioned as under:
We have an preferred appeal against the order framed in Form
10AD by the Hon CIT(Exemptions), Pune on 07.12.2024, denying registration u/s 12A of the IT Act 1961. appeal against the same was required to be filed by 05.02.2025. The appeal is actually The order of the Hon CIT(Exemptions) was passed on 07.12.2024 and accordingly is a delay of 235 days in filing of the said regards, we humbly submit the following for your honour's kind consideration as under:-
1. The appellant trust is registered under the Bombay Public
Trust Act, 1950, under registration no. A-1014 (Thane) since 6th
December 1993. The appellant trust was granted provisional registration u/s 12AB of the Income Tax Act, 1961, w.e.f. 24th
September 2021. Subsequently, the trust applied for the grant of registration u/s 12A(1)(ac) in Form No.10AB on 29.06.2024
with the office of the Hon CIT(Exemptions) Pune.
2. In the course of the registration procedure, the Hon. CIT
(Exemption) issued a notice dated 26.11.2024 seeking certain information by 03.12.2024. As the information sought for was being compiled, the appellant trust sought adjournment online on the I T portal on 02.12.2024, seeking extension of time till
18.12.2024 for furnishing the relevant information.
The Hon. CIT (Exemption) inspite of the extension of time sought vide on-line adjournment request dated. 02.12.2024, presumed that the appellant trust had not furnished any response to the notice dated
26.11.2024
and rejected the registration application u/s 12A(1)(ac) vide order dated 07.12.2024. 4. 2 The authorised representative of the trust brought this error of not considering Hon, CIT (Exemption), Pune and was advised to file a fresh application the adjournment request dated, 02.12.2004 to the attention of the office of the immediately u/s 12A. The appellant trust Gled a fresh application for the grant of registration u/s 12A on 14.02.2025, which again stood rejected for a different reason.
5. The appellant trust originally did not prefer an appeal against the rejection order dated. 07.12.2024 as it was under a bonafide belief that the fresh application for grant of registration u/s 12A would be considered fairly in view of the earlier error of the office of the Hon. CIT (Exemption) in not considering the adjournment request of the said trust. The advice to file fresh application was given to the authorised representative of the appellant.
6. However, when the fresh application for the grant of registration u/s 12A filed on 14.02.2025 was also rejected on 08.07.2025, the appellant was advised to filed appeal against both the rejection orders in the interest of justice.
We submit that considering the above explanation the present appeal may kindly be admitted for hearing on merits, under the powers granted to your honours by sec. 253(5) of the IT Act.
1961. In support, we rely upon the under mentioned decisions
Collector, Land Acquisition -vs- Mst. Katiji & Ors., 167 ITR 471
(SC)
2. Senior Bhosale Estate (HUF) -vs- ACIT, 112 taxmann.com 134
(SC)
3. Vijay Vishin Meghani -vs- DCIT. 86 taxmann.com 98
(Bombay)
4. Peter Vaz-vs- CIT, 128 taxmann.com 180 (Bombay)
We have submitted the original an affidavit dated 29.09.2025, affirming the above facts on oath at the time of appeal filing alongwith the Form no.36. Please condone the delay and admit the appeal for which we shall remain ever grateful.
4. On the other hand Ld. DR refuted the contents contained in the application and requested for dismissal of the same.
5. 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.
6. 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 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.
7. On the other hand, Ld. DR relied upon the orders passed by the revenue authorities.
8. 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.

Order pronounced in the open court on 02.12.2025 (OMKARESHWAR CHIDARA) (SANDEEP GOSAIN)
ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER

Mumbai, Dated 02/12/2025
KRK, Sr. PS.

आदेश की ितिलिप अेिषत/Copy of the Order forwarded to :
1. अपीलाथ / The Appellant
2. थ / The Respondent.
3. संबंिधत आयकर आयु / The CIT(A)
4. आयकर आयु(अपील) / Concerned CIT
5. िवभागीय ितिनिध, आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण,मुबई/ DR, ITAT, Mumbai
6. गाड फाईल / Guard file.
आदेशानुसार/BY ORDER,
सािपत ित ////

उप/सहायक पंजीकार ( Asst.