SHREE ISRA SO PARMESHRA HARIRAS NYAS BHADRES,BARMER vs. CIT (EXEMPTION), JAIPUR

We have considered the explanation furnished on behalf of the assessee. The circumstances narrated before us sufficiently explain the reasons which prevented the assessee from preferring the appeals within the prescribed period. There is nothing on record to suggest that the assessee derived any advantage by filing the appeals belatedly or that the delay was intentional. In our considered view, the assessee has shown sufficient cause for not filing the appeals within the prescribed time. Accordingly, in the interest of substantial justice, the delay of 690 days in filing both the appeals is condoned and the appeals are admitted for adjudication on merits.

Briefly stated, the assessee filed an online application in Form No. 10AB on 30.09.2022 seeking registration under section 12AB of the Act. The learned CIT(E) issued notice dated 02.01.2023 requiring the assessee to furnish certain documents and explanations by 17.01.2023. Since, according to the learned CIT(E), no compliance was made, a reminder dated 20.01.2023 was issued requiring compliance by 27.01.2023.

The learned CIT(E), after referring to Rule 17A of the Income Tax Rules, 1962, observed that the requisite documents and particulars had not been furnished. The learned CIT(E) further noticed that, inter alia, copies of annual accounts for the preceding years, bills and vouchers of expenses, photographs of activities, details of social-media presence/digital footprint and details of bank accounts had not been furnished. In the absence of such material, the learned CIT(E) held that it was not possible to verify whether the assessee was genuinely carrying on charitable activities in accordance with its objects.

The learned CIT(E) accordingly rejected the application for registration under section 12AB vide order dated 23.02.2023 on the following grounds: i. incomplete Form No. 10AB; ii. non-registration under the Rajasthan Public Trust Act, 1959; and genuineness of activities having not been established. iii.

Before us, the learned AR reiterated that the non-compliance before the learned CIT(E) had occurred due to the circumstances already explained while seeking condonation of delay. It was submitted that there was no deliberate disregard of the notices issued by the learned CIT(E) and that the assessee may be granted one effective opportunity to place all the relevant documents, accounts, evidence relating to its activities and explanations before the learned CIT(E). The learned AR undertook that the assessee would fully cooperate with the proceedings and furnish the requisite material as may be called for. He accordingly

As regards approval under section 80G, the learned AR submitted that the application had been rejected only as a consequence of rejection of registration under section 12AB. He, therefore, submitted that if the section 12AB matter was restored, the application under section 80G may also be restored for fresh consideration as a consequential matter.

The learned DR relied upon the impugned orders passed by the learned CIT(E). However, considering that the requisite material was not available before the learned CIT(E), the learned DR raised no serious objection to restoration of the matters for fresh adjudication in accordance with law.

We have considered the rival submissions and perused the material available on record. It is evident from the impugned order that the assessee’s application for registration under section 12AB was rejected substantially on account of non-compliance with the notices issued by the learned CIT(E) and the consequent absence of material necessary for examination of the application. Apart from the incomplete particulars, the learned CIT(E) has specifically referred to non-

The learned AR has now undertaken before us that the assessee shall duly participate in the proceedings before the learned CIT(E) and shall furnish the complete documents, accounts, details of its activities and explanations as may be required. Thus, the issues on which the application came to be rejected require examination on the basis of the complete material which the assessee proposes to place before the learned CIT(E).

In these circumstances, and without expressing any opinion on the merits of the assessee’s eligibility for registration, we are of the considered view that one more effective opportunity ought to be granted to the assessee so that its application may be examined on merits on the basis of complete material. We accordingly set aside the impugned order dated 23.02.2023 relating to registration under section 12AB and restore the application to the file of the learned CIT(E) for adjudication afresh in accordance with law.

The learned CIT(E) shall consider all the documents and material that may be furnished by the assessee, including the constitutional

As regards the application under section 80G, the impugned order itself shows that the same was rejected on account of rejection of the assessee’s application for registration under section 12AB. Thus, the rejection under section 80G was consequential to rejection of the application under section 12AB.

Since we have restored the issue relating to registration under section 12AB to the file of the learned CIT(E) for fresh adjudication, the consequential issue relating to approval under section 80G also requires reconsideration. Accordingly, the impugned order dated 23.02.2023 relating to approval under section 80G is also set aside and the matter is

We make it clear that all issues are left open for consideration by the learned CIT(E) and our observations are confined only to restoration of the matters for fresh adjudication. Nothing contained in this order shall be construed as an expression of opinion on the merits of the assessee’s eligibility either for registration under section 12AB or for approval under section 80G.

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes.