SHREE KEDARESHWAR SHIV SAPTAH TRUST,BARDOLI, SURAT vs. CIT(EXEMPTION) AHMEDABAD, SURAT

Since these appeals relate to the same assessee and are interconnected, they were heard together and are being decided by this common order.

There is a delay of 90 days in first appeal and 122 days in second appeal. The assessee has filed applications/affidavits for condonation of delays giving similar reasoning of delays in both appeals. Hence, the application/affidavit filed in one of these appeals is scanned and re- produced for an immediate reference:

The averments made by assessee in above application/affidavit, 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 appeals. 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 appeals and proceed with hearing.

Ld. AR for assessee carried us to the impugned orders and submitted that the Ld. CIT(E) has passed ex-parte orders while granting only one opportunity to the assessee, which the assessee could not avail. It was further submitted that the impugned orders have been passed without examining the applications on merits. It was also emphasised that the registration u/s 12A/12AB and approval u/s 80G(5) are 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 matters 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 orders passed by Ld. CIT(E). He submitted that the assessee voluntarily filed applications to Ld. CIT(E) seeking registration u/s 12A/12AB and approval u/s 80G(5), 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 applications by Ld. CIT(E) was fully justified and the impugned orders be upheld.

We have considered the rival submissions of both sides and carefully perused the case files including the impugned orders passed by Ld. CIT(E). We find that that the rejection of the applications by Ld. CIT(E) are primarily on account of non-compliances by the assessee in furnishing the requisite details and documents. At the same time, on a perusal of Column No. 10 of the impugned orders (main body of Form No. 10AD) passed by Ld. CIT(E), the Ld. CIT(E) appears to have granted only one opportunity to assessee, 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 and approval u/s 80G(5), 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 these matters 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 effective opportunity to substantiate his applications. Accordingly, we set aside the impugned orders and restore these matters to the file of the Ld. CIT(E) for a fresh consideration. The Ld. CIT(E) shall examine the applications 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 orders in accordance with law. Ordered accordingly.

Resultantly, these appeals are allowed for statistical purposes.