Loading judgment…
Facts
The assessee, Raja Balrao Rustamrao Sewa Foundation, appealed against the CIT(E)'s rejection of its 80G registration application for A.Y. 2025-26. The appeal was filed with a 92-day delay, attributed to the director being a senior citizen unfamiliar with online compliances and the tax consultant's failure to communicate or comply with notices.
Held
The Tribunal condoned the delay, prioritizing substantial justice over technicalities, given the assessee's reasonable explanation. It restored the matter to the CIT(E) for fresh consideration on merits, granting the assessee another opportunity to present its case, with a directive for cooperation.
Key Issues
Condonation of 92-day delay in filing appeal against rejection of 80G registration; whether assessee was provided sufficient opportunity of hearing by CIT(E).
Sections Cited
250, 80G, 8 of Companies Act, 2013
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “D” BENCH, MUMBAI
Before: SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN & SHRI PRABHASH SHANKAR
Date of Hearing 10.09.2025 Date of Pronouncement 03.11.2025 ORDER Per: SHRI. SANDEEP GOSAIN, J.M.:
The present appeals have been filed by the assessee challenging the different impugned orders dt. 16.01.2025 & 04.07.2024 passed under section 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (‘the Act’), by the National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC) / CIT(E) for the assessment year 2025-26.
Since all the issues involved in these two appeals are common and identical, therefore, they have been clubbed, heard together and consolidated order is being passed for
At the outset, we noticed that the present appeal filed by the assessee is time barred by 92 days and in this regard an application for seeking condonation of delay has been filed by the assessee, wherein it has been mentioned as under:
I, Swaran Singh, aged 77 years, (Director of Raja Balarao Rustamroa Sewa Foundation), a male Indian Inhabitant, having address at Common Plot No 49, Panvel Raigarh Khargahr (CT), Kharghar, Panvel - 410 210 do hereby state and declare on Solemn affirmation as under:
1.
I am only 4th Pass law abiding Indian Citizen holding PAN No DHPPS4895J. I am also Director in Raja Balarao Rustomrao Sewa Foundation (hereinafter referred as "RBRSF") a company registered under section 8 of Companies Act, 2013 with primary object of undertaking charitable, social and humanitarian work which includes Relief to Poor, Education, Medical relief, provide cost-effective accommodation facilities to cancer patients and their relatives who comes to Mumbai for the treatment from different parts of India.
2. I am not well conversant about the complicated Income tax compliances and with the computer operations and online proceedings. For all the compliances related activities I am totally dependent on the services of my professional consultant Vivek Rawal.
3. RBRSF applied for 80G Registration on 02.08.2024 vide Form No. 10AB wherein all the details were duly filled and submitted in full along with the relevant particulars and attachments.
4. The Ld CIT(Exemption)-Pune issued notices on 19.10.2024 and 19.11.2024 wherein voluminous details were called for however, the Vivek Rawal i.e. our tax consultant of RBRSF was out of town due to Diwali Festival and the point wise reply to the above notices were filed on 23.11.2024.
5. Considering the above reply filed, the Ld CIT (Exemption)- Pune issued another notice dated 02.01.2025 (Thursday) was issued wherein voluminous details were called and the compliance date was fixed at 08.01.2025 i.e effective 3 working days' time was provided to RBRSF.
6. Vivek Rawal did not comply with the notice issued on 02.01.2025 and I was also not come to know about the notice as the notice was issued electronically and I am not well versed with the emails.
7. In absence of reply from RBRSF, the Ld. CIT(E) vide order dated 16.01.2025 rejected the application for approval u/s 80G of Income Tax Act, 1961. The due date for filling appeal before the Tribunal was 31.03.2025.
8. Since the I am a senior citizen and not well versed with the compliances and not well versed with the online compliances and emails. Therefore, I was not knowing about the rejection order.
9. During the last week of June 2025 when the auditor CA Deepak Arora of the RBRSF logged into Income Tax Portal for finalizing books of accounts of the appellant company. We come to know that the application is already rejected vide order dated 16.01.2025.
10. Immediately We have started the process of filling appeal before Income Tax Appellate Tribunal and accordingly the appeal was filed on 01.07.2025. This resulted into delay of 92 days in filling the appeal before Hon'ble Income Tax Appellate Tribunal which is beyond our control.
Due to such unfortunate events, there has been a delay of 92 days in filing appeal before Income Tax Appellate Tribunal. Under the aforesaid circumstances, I submit that the delay in filling appeal was neither intentional nor warranted and if the & 4348/Mum/2025 Raja Balarao Rustamrao Sewa Foundation, Mumbai. delay is not condoned then RBRSF will suffer irreparable loss and injury. As, the delay caused due to genuine and bona fide reasons, So I request your honour to kindly condone the delay in filling appeal before the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal in the interest of justice and equity. 12.I tender my sincere apology to Hon'ble Members and promise to be more vigilant in future.
In view of above and in the interest of justice, I request your honour to kindly condone the delay in filling appeal and decide the matter on merit. I shall remain grateful for this act of kindness. Whatever stated hereinabove is true and correct to the best of my knowledge an belief.
On the other hand Ld. DR refuted the contents contained in the application and requested for dismissal of the same as there are no ‘sufficient cause’ for not filing the appeal within the time.
After having heard the counsel for both the parties on this application for seeking condonation of delay and 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 and others 1987 AIR 1353 Supreme Court, wherein it has been held that were substantial justice is pitted against technicalities of non deliberate delay, then in that eventuality substantial justice is to be preferred. However, considering the fact that delay in filing the present appeal had accrued on account of the fact that the tax consultant had not complied with the notice and the director being senor & 4348/Mum/2025 Raja Balarao Rustamrao Sewa Foundation, Mumbai. citizen was not well versed with the online compliance. Thus in this way the company was not made aware of the order passed there under. In our 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 us. Therefore we condone the delay and admit the appeal to be heard on merits.
From the records we noticed that application for registration of the assessee was rejected as the assessee could not satisfactorily remove the discrepancies pointed out by Ld. CIT(E). However, in this regard it was submitted by Ld. AR that assessee had already complied with all the notices and submitted respective documentary evidences in support of its claim. It was also submitted that one notice issued by Ld. CIT(E) on 02.10.2025 could not be replied as the tax consultant Shri Vivek Rawal had not informed the assessee and also the time for complying the same was very less. Otherwise all the discrepancies pointed out by the Ld. CIT(E) could have been complied. It was submitted that Ld. CIT(E) wrongly rejected the registration application in a horridly manner without providing sufficient opportunity of hearing to the assessee
Be that as it may, without going into the merits of the issues raised by the assessee we are of the view that since the assessee could not put effective representation before Ld. CIT(E). In this regard, a detailed affidavit has already been filed by the assessee. Therefore one more opportunity be given to the assessee to represent his case before Ld. CIT(E). Hence, considering the overall circumstances of the present case, we deem it proper to restore the matter back to the file of Ld. CIT(E) for deciding the matter afresh on merits by providing one more 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.
ITA No. 4348/Mum/2025 AY 2025-26
as the facts and circumstances in this appeal are identical to for the AY 2025-26 (except variance in figures) would apply ‘mutatis mutandis’ for this 11 . In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes.
Order pronounced in the open court on 03/11/2025