NAV SRIJAN YUVA SANSTHAN,BARMER vs. CIT (EXEMPTION), JAIPUR

At the outset, the Registry has pointed out a delay of 659 day in filing the appeal in ITA No. 297/Jodh/2025 and 629 days in filing the appeal in ITA No. 298/Jodh/2025. The assessee has sought condonation of the delay. The learned AR explained that the delay had occurred for the reasons that the relevant papers relating to the proceedings before the learned CIT(E) had been entrusted to the then Authorised Representative. However, the notices and communications received at the e-mail address of the said Authorised Representative were neither duly attended to nor brought to the notice of the office-bearers of the assessee. Consequently, the office-bearers remained unaware of the proceedings as well as the rejection of the applications. It was submitted that on coming to know of the impugned orders, the assessee obtained the requisite particulars, approached another counsel and thereafter took steps for filing the appeal. The learned AR submitted that the delay

The learned DR did not seriously object to the condonation of delay, particularly if the matters were to be restored to the file of the learned CIT(E) for fresh adjudication.

We have considered the explanation furnished on behalf of the assessee. The circumstances explained by the learned AR sufficiently disclose the cause which prevented the assessee from availing its statutory remedy within the prescribed period. There is nothing on record to indicate that the assessee stood to derive any advantage by filing the appeal belatedly or that the delay was deliberate. Having regard to the explanation furnished and keeping in view that the matters concerning registration and approval of a charitable institution require adjudication on the basis of the relevant material, we are satisfied that sufficient cause has been shown for the delay. Accordingly, in the interest of substantial justice, the delay of 629 days and 659 days in both the appeals is condoned and both appeals are admitted for adjudication on merits.

The learned CIT(E), while examining the application with reference to Rule 17A of the Income Tax Rules, 1962, observed that the requisite documents and particulars had not been furnished. It was further noticed that the assessee had not furnished registration under the Rajasthan Public Trust Act, 1959 and, in the absence of the requisite documents and details including the bank account particulars, the genuineness of the charitable activities of the assessee could not be

Before us, the learned AR reiterated that the non-compliance before the learned CIT(E) had occurred due to the circumstances which had also resulted in the delay in filing the appeals. He submitted that there was no deliberate disregard of the notices issued by the learned

The learned DR relied upon the respective orders passed by the learned CIT(E). However, considering that the relevant particulars and material were not available before the learned CIT(E), the learned DR did not seriously object 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 order dated 21.03.2023 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 the

The learned AR has undertaken before us that the assessee shall duly participate in the proceedings before the learned CIT(E) and shall furnish all the documents, accounts, details of its activities and explanations as may be called for. 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 furnish before the learned CIT(E).

In these circumstances, and without expressing any opinion on the merits of the assessee’s eligibility for registration under section 12AB, we are of the considered view that the ends of justice would be adequately met by granting one more effective opportunity to the assessee to establish its claim before the learned CIT(E). We accordingly set aside the impugned order dated 21.03.2023 and restore the application for

The learned CIT(E) shall examine all the documents and material which may be placed before him, including the constitution of the assessee, accounts, details and evidence relating to its activities, the position concerning registration under the Rajasthan Public Trust Act, 1959, and such other material as may be relevant for adjudicating the application under section 12AB. The learned CIT(E) shall thereafter decide the application on its own merits and in accordance with law after affording reasonable opportunity of hearing to the assessee. The assessee is also directed to ensure full and timely compliance with the proceedings before the learned CIT(E) and not to seek unnecessary adjournments.

Coming to the appeal concerning approval under section 80G, we find that the impugned order dated 20.04.2023 itself records that the application was rejected on account of rejection of the assessee’s application for registration under section 12AB. Thus, the rejection of the application under section 80G is essentially consequential to the rejection of registration under section 12AB.

We make it clear that all issues are left open for consideration by the learned CIT(E) and our observations hereinabove are confined to restoration of the applications for fresh adjudication. Nothing stated 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.