SHREE BARDOLI KSHATRIYA SAMAST PANCH,BARDOLI,SURAT vs. CIT(EXEMPTION)AHMEDABAD, SURAT

There is a delay of 90 days in filing present appeal and therefore time- barred. The assessee has filed application for condonation of delay; the same is scanned and re-produced below:

The averments made by assessee in above application, which are self- explanatory and which do not require repetition, were discussed and the Ld. DR for revenue does not have any objection if the bench condones delay and accordingly left it to the wisdom of bench. We have considered the explanation advanced by assessee and in absence of any contrary fact or material on record, the assessee is found to have a “sufficient cause” for delay in filing present appeal. We find that section 253(5) of the Act empowers the ITAT to admit an appeal after expiry of prescribed time, if there is a “sufficient cause” for not presenting appeal within prescribed time. It is also a settled position by Hon’ble Supreme Court in Collector, Land Acquisition Vs Mst. Katiji and others 1987 AIR 1353, 1987 2 SCC 387 that whenever substantial justice and technical considerations are opposed to each other, the cause of substantial justice must be preferred by adopting a justice-oriented approach. Thus, taking into account the facts of case, the provision of section 253(5) and the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court, we take a judicious view, condone delay, admit appeal and proceed with hearing.

Ld. AR for assessee carried us to the impugned order and submitted that the Ld. CIT(E) has passed ex-parte order while granting only one opportunity to the assessee, which the assessee could not avail. It was further submitted that the impugned order has been passed without examining assessee’ application on merit. It was also emphasised that the registration u/s 12A/12AB is fundamental and necessary for the existence and functioning of assessee since the assessee is engaged in charitable/ religious activities for the benefit of the public. It was further submitted that the assessee is ready with the requisite details and documents for making an effective representation before Ld. CIT(E). It was also assured that if one more opportunity is given, the assessee shall fully co-operate and make effective representation before Ld. CIT(E). Accordingly, it was prayed that in the interest of justice and fair play, the present matter be restored to the file of Ld. CIT(E) for a meritorious adjudication after affording reasonable opportunity of hearing to assessee.

Per contra, Ld. DR for revenue submitted that there is no infirmity in the order passed by Ld. CIT(E). He submitted that the assessee voluntarily filed application to Ld. CIT(E) seeking registration u/s 12A/12AB, therefore it was incumbent upon the assessee to stay diligent and make representation before Ld. CIT(E) when called upon. He submitted that the Ld. CIT(E) has given opportunity to assessee but the assessee failed to avail the same. Therefore, the Ld. CIT(E) could not get necessary satisfaction for granting registration due to the failure of assessee. He, therefore, submitted that rejection of application by Ld. CIT(E) was fully justified and the impugned order be upheld.

We have considered the rival submissions of both sides and carefully perused the case file including the impugned order passed by Ld. CIT(E). We find that that the rejection of the application by Ld. CIT(E) is primarily on account of non-compliance by the assessee in furnishing the requisite details and documents. At the same time, on a perusal of Column No. 10 of the impugned order (main body of Form No. 10AD) passed by Ld. CIT(E), the Ld. CIT(E) appear to have granted only one opportunity to assessee on 04.04.2025, which shows that the Ld. CIT(E) has not afforded sufficient opportunities. Considering the nature of proceeding relating to grant of registration u/s 12A/12AB, which has significant consequences for the assessee and in the interest of justice and fair play and also having regard to the fact that the remanding of this matter to the file of Ld. CIT(E) would not cause any prejudice to the revenue/respondent, we are of the view that the assessee should be granted one more opportunity to substantiate his application. Accordingly, we set aside the impugned order and restore this matter to the file of the Ld. CIT(E) for a fresh consideration. The Ld. CIT(E) shall examine assessee’s application afresh after providing reasonable and adequate opportunities of being heard to assessee. The assessee is also directed to make representation to Ld. CIT(E) and furnish all requisite details and documents without seeking unnecessary adjournments failing which the Ld. CIT(E) shall be at liberty to pass order in accordance with law. Ordered accordingly.

Resultantly, this appeal is allowed for statistical purposes.