RAO SHARI BIDAJI RATHORE SANSTHAN,GOPALPURA vs. CIT EXEMPTION JAIPUR, INCOME TAX

The grounds raised by the assessee read as under:

The Registry has reported a delay of 336 days in filing the appeal. The assessee has filed an application for condonation of delay supported by an affidavit of its President. It has been explained that the President of the assessee, being about 72 years of age and not conversant with the provisions of the Income Tax Act, 1961 and the prescribed limitation, could not take timely steps for filing the appeal. It has further been stated that the local tax consultant did not inform him about the rejection order. The assessee became aware of the rejection only upon receipt of a scrutiny notice on 27.02.2025 and, thereafter, immediately contacted a Chartered Accountant and took steps to file the present

Having regard to the explanation furnished on oath, we are satisfied that the delay was neither deliberate nor attributable to any mala fide intention. The assessee was prevented by sufficient cause from filing the appeal within the prescribed period. Accordingly, the delay is condoned and the appeal is admitted for adjudication.

On merits, the learned CIT(E) rejected the application principally on the grounds that Form No. 10AB was incomplete, the assessee had not produced registration under the Rajasthan Public Trust Act, 1959, and the documents necessary for examining the genuineness of its activities were not furnished despite the opportunities granted.

Before us, the learned Authorised Representative submitted that the assessee has now obtained registration under the Rajasthan Public Trust Act, 1959 and is in a position to furnish the registration certificate as well as the requisite accounts, activity details and supporting documents before the learned CIT(E). He, therefore, requested that one more opportunity be granted to the assessee. The learned DR raised no

We have considered the rival submissions and perused the material available on record. The registration under the Rajasthan Public Trust Act, 1959, which was not available before the learned CIT(E), is now stated to be available. The remaining objections concerning completeness of Form No. 10AB and genuineness of the activities also require examination on the basis of the supporting material to be furnished by the assessee. We, therefore, consider it appropriate, in the interest of substantial justice, to set aside the impugned order and restore the application to the file of the learned CIT(E) for consideration afresh in accordance with law. The assessee shall furnish the registration certificate and all other documents and explanations called for and shall extend full cooperation in the proceedings. The learned CIT(E) shall afford a reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee before passing a speaking order. We have expressed no opinion on the merits of the application.

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes.