CHANDIRA FOUNDATION,DAKSHINA KANNADA vs. CTI(EXEMPTIONS), BENGALURU, BENGALURU

The present appeal by the assessee is delayed by 182 days. Along with the appeal, the assessee has filed an affidavit seeking condonation of the delay, submitting as follows: - 1. I am the Trustee of the appellant, and I am well acquainted with the facts and circumstances of the case. I am competent to swear to this affidavit. 2. The application for condonation of delay of 183 days in filing the Appeal for Ay 2025-26 is made before this Hon’ble ITAT. 3. We could not file the Appeal within time specified due to bona fide misconception of the procedural remedy. Following the rejection of the initial application filed in Form 10AB, we were faced with a choice between immediate litigation and administrative rectification. Acting in good faith and with the intent to resolve the matter efficiently, we filed a fresh application in Form 10AB, under the diligent belief that this subsequent filing would address the previous deficiencies and be approved. Throughout this period, we remained under the persistent impression that the second application was the most viable path to relief. Consequently, we awaited the adjudication of this fresh application rather than initiating an appeal against the original order. It was only after the subsequent application was also rejected that we realized the legal necessity of challenging the initial order through the appellate process. 4. The application for condonation of delay is genuine and the same is required to be allowed. 5. The delay not being deliberate but because of the circumstances, may kindly be condoned and the Appeal may be admitted. 6. Appellant prays for condonation of delay and for admission of the appeal in the interest of justice.

We find that the reasons stated by the assessee for seeking condonation of delay fall within the parameters for grant of condonation laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Collector Land Acquisition, Ananth Nag vs. MST Katiji anothers, reported in 1987 SCR (2) 387. It is well- established that the Rules of procedure are handmaid of justice. When substantial justice and technical considerations are pitted against each other, the cause of substantial justice deserves to be preferred. In the present case, the assessee did not stand to benefit from the late filing of the present appeal. In view of the above and having perused the affidavit filed by the assessee, we are of the considered view that there exists sufficient cause for not filing a present appeal within the limitation period, and therefore, we condone the delay in filing the appeal by the assessee, and we proceed to decide the appeal.

In this appeal, the assessee has raised the following grounds: - 1. The learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemptions) has erred both in law and on facts in rejecting the application for registration of the appellant u/s 80G of the Act. 2. A. The impugned order is vitiated in law as the show-cause notices were sent to an outdated email ID, and the appellant was not aware of the proceedings. B. The Ld. CIT(E) erred in law and on facts by passing an ex-parte order without providing a reasonable opportunity of being heard, as the statutory notices were served on an incorrect email ID, thereby depriving the Appellant of its right to present its case. C. The Ld. CIT(E) failed to appreciate that the notices dated 15.05.2025 and 29.05.2025 were dispatched to a third-party consultant’s email address, resulting in a genuine lack of knowledge of the proceedings. D. The Ld. CIT(E) erred in cancelling the registration and rejecting Form 10AB without making any adverse findings regarding the genuineness of the Appellant’s objects or the nature of its medical and healthcare-related charitable activities. E. The Ld. CIT(E) failed to recognize that the non-compliance was neither willful nor deliberate, but was caused by a communication lapse beyond the Appellant’s control, which does not warrant the harsh penalty of registration cancellation. 7. For the above and other grounds to be urged during the hearing of the appeal the Appellant prays that the appeal be allowed, and the order passed by the CIT(E) may please be cancelled and registration may be granted, or the matter may be set aside to the file of CIT(E) with appropriate direction. During the hearing, the learned Authorised Representative (“learned 4. AR”) submitted that on 23.11.2024, the assessee filed an application in Form 10AB for seeking registration under section 80G of the Act. It was submitted that the learned CIT(E) vide impugned order dated 14.06.2025 rejected the said application, as the assessee failed to submit the necessary documents to prove the genuineness of the activities of the assessee trust and to fulfil all the conditions laid down in section 80G of the Act. The learned AR submitted that prior to the passing of the impugned order on 14.06.2025, the assessee realised that its earlier application in Form 10AB filed on 23.11.2024 was under an incorrect code, as the same was filed in clause (ii) of the first proviso to section 80G(5) of the Act. Accordingly, the assessee suo moto filed another application in Form 10AB on 06.06.2025 under the correct code, i.e. clause (iii) of the first proviso to section 80G(5) of the Act, as the assessee was already holding provisional approval, and therefore, only required regularisation of the registration instead of extension of the registration earlier granted. The learned AR submitted that its earlier application filed in Form 10AB on 23.11.2024 was not only rejected by the learned CIT(E) vide impugned order, but its second application in Form 10AB filed on 06.06.2025 under the correct code was also rejected by the learned CIT(E) vide order dated 24.12.2025 passed in Form 10AD, on the basis that the assessee’s earlier application was rejected vide order dated 14.06.2025 and the assessee instead of filing an appeal against the same has again filed an application for seeking registration under section 80G of the Act.