PANDIT SHRI GATTULALJI SANSTHA,MUMBAI vs. EXEM. WARD 2(2), MUMBAI, MUMBAI

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “B” BENCH MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI CHALLA NAGENDRA PRASAD, VICE PRESIDENT & SHRI MAKARAND VASANT MAHADEOKAR, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA No. 3923/Mum/2026 (Assessment Year: 2020-21) Pandit Shri Gattulalji ITO Exem Ward 2(2) Sansthan Income Tax Appellate Vs. 51/53, Atmaram Tribunal, Mumbai – Merchant Road, 400 020 Bhuleshwar Mumbai- 400 002 PAN/GIR No. AAATP0619E (Applicant) (Respondent) Assessee by Shri Jalaj Prakash, Ld. AR Revenue by Shri B. Panda, Ld. DR Date of Hearing 02.07.2026 Date of Pronouncement 07.07.2026 आदेश / ORDER PER MAKARAND VASANT MAHADEOKAR, AM: This appeal by the assessee is directed against the order dated 19.04.2023 passed by the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemptions), Mumbai [hereinafter referred to as "the CIT(E)"], in Form No. 10AD, whereby the application filed by the assessee in Form No. 10AB seeking registration under section

2 ITA No. 3923/Mum/2026 Pandit Shri Gattulalji Sansthan 12AB of the Income-tax Act, 1961[hereinafter referred to as "the Act"], was rejected. Condonation of Delay 2. The Registry has noted a delay of 1007 days in filing the present appeal. The assessee has filed an application for condonation of delay supported by an affidavit of the trustee. 3. The learned AR submitted that the assessee trust is a trust constituted in the year 1954 and registered under the Bombay Public Trusts Act, 1950. The assessee had filed Form 10AB on 26.10.2022 seeking regular registration under section 12AB of the Act. Notices under section 12A(1)(ac)(ii) were issued on 16.03.2023 and 08.04.2023. Thereafter, the learned CIT(E), Mumbai passed the impugned order dated 19.04.2023 in Form 10AD rejecting the application for grant of registration for non- compliance. 4. It was submitted that the entire work relating to registration and portal compliances was entrusted to the accountant, Shri Dipen Kirit Desai, who had access to the Income-tax portal and was required to coordinate with the tax consultant and upload the necessary details. The said accountant suffered from cardiac ailment, was advised rest and medication, and left the job without prior intimation to the trustees. It was further submitted that the trustees, being senior citizens and not well versed with the procedural requirements of the Income-tax Act, remained under the bona fide belief that the accountant was attending to

3 ITA No. 3923/Mum/2026 Pandit Shri Gattulalji Sansthan the matter. The assessee became aware of the rejection order only upon receipt of a notice of tax demand. Thereafter, the assessee engaged a new tax consultant, who informed the trustees about the order dated 19.04.2023 and advised filing of appeal before the Tribunal along with a request for condonation of delay. 5. The learned DR, considering the explanation furnished by the assessee and the affidavit placed on record, did not raise any objection to the condonation of delay. 6. We have considered the rival submissions and perused the material placed on record. The delay of 1007 days is undoubtedly substantial. However, the length of delay, by itself, cannot be the sole determinative factor. What is required to be examined is whether the assessee has shown sufficient cause for not filing the appeal within the prescribed period. In the present case, the assessee has explained that the matter was entrusted to its accountant, who had complete access to the portal and was responsible for coordinating the compliances. The accountant, due to health issues, left the employment without informing the trustees and without bringing the rejection order to their notice. The trustees were senior citizens and were not conversant with the procedural aspects of the Income-tax Act. The assessee came to know of the rejection order only after receipt of the notice of tax demand and, upon obtaining professional advice, filed the present appeal.

4 ITA No. 3923/Mum/2026 Pandit Shri Gattulalji Sansthan 7. The explanation furnished by the assessee appears to be bona fide and is supported by an affidavit. There is nothing on record to suggest that the delay was deliberate, intentional or caused with any mala fide motive. No benefit could have accrued to the assessee by filing the appeal belatedly. On the contrary, refusal to condone the delay would result in denial of adjudication of the assessee’s grievance on merits, particularly when the dispute concerns registration of a charitable or religious trust under section 12AB of the Act.

5 ITA No. 3923/Mum/2026 Pandit Shri Gattulalji Sansthan The appellant crave leave to add, amend, alter and / or vary any of the grounds of appeal before or at the time of hearing. Brief facts 11. The brief facts of the case are that the assessee filed an application in Form No. 10AB seeking registration under section 12AB of the Act. The learned CIT(E), upon verification of the application, observed that the application was incomplete and that the documents prescribed under Rule 17A(2) of the Income- tax Rules, 1962, had not been furnished. The learned CIT(E), therefore, issued a notice dated 16.03.2023 requiring the assessee to furnish the complete set of documents prescribed under Rule 17A(2). Thereafter, a reminder notice dated 08.04.2023 was also issued. The learned CIT(E) recorded that there was no compliance with the aforesaid notices. The learned CIT(E) observed that, in the absence of the requisite documents and compliance, he was unable to record satisfaction regarding the objects of the assessee, the genuineness of its activities and compliance with other laws, as contemplated under section 12AB(1)(b) of the Act. Considering the statutory time limit for disposal of the application on or before 30.04.2023, the learned CIT(E), vide the impugned order dated 19.04.2023, rejected the application filed by the assessee for registration under section 12AB of the Act. 12. Before us, the learned Authorised Representative (AR) submitted that the learned CIT(E) rejected the application in Form No. 10AB for non-compliance with the notices dated

6 ITA No. 3923/Mum/2026 Pandit Shri Gattulalji Sansthan 16.03.2023 and 08.04.2023, without examining the assessee’s eligibility for registration under section 12AB of the Act on merits. He submitted that the non-compliance occurred because the work relating to the registration proceedings and portal compliances had been entrusted to the accountant, Shri Dipen Kirit Desai, who had access to the Income-tax portal and was required to coordinate with the tax consultant and furnish the requisite documents. Owing to a cardiac ailment, the accountant was advised rest and medication and thereafter left the employment without informing the trustees or bringing the notices and the rejection order to their attention. The trustees, being senior citizens and not conversant with the procedural requirements of the Act, remained under the bona fide belief that the matter was being duly attended to. It was, therefore, prayed that the impugned order be set aside and the matter be restored to the file of the learned CIT(E) for fresh adjudication after granting the assessee an effective opportunity to furnish the requisite documents. 13. The learned DR relied upon the impugned order passed by the learned CIT(E). However, considering the explanation furnished by the assessee regarding the circumstances which resulted in non-compliance, he did not raise any objection to restoration of the matter to the file of the learned CIT(E) for fresh consideration in accordance with law. 14. We have considered the rival submissions and perused the material placed on record. The application filed by the assessee in

7 ITA No. 3923/Mum/2026 Pandit Shri Gattulalji Sansthan Form No. 10AB seeking registration under section 12AB of the Act was rejected by the learned CIT(E) vide order dated 19.04.2023, principally on account of non-compliance with the notices dated 16.03.2023 and 08.04.2023 and non-furnishing of the documents prescribed under Rule 17A(2) of the Income-tax Rules, 1962. 15. The assessee has explained that the registration proceedings and related portal compliances had been entrusted to its accountant, Shri Dipen Kirit Desai, who had access to the Income-tax portal and was responsible for coordinating with the tax consultant. Due to a cardiac ailment, the accountant was advised rest and medication and subsequently left the employment without prior intimation to the trustees. The notices issued by the learned CIT(E), as well as the consequential rejection order, were therefore not brought to the notice of the trustees. The trustees, being senior citizens and not familiar with the procedural requirements under the Act, remained under the bona fide belief that the accountant was attending to the proceedings. 16. The aforesaid explanation is the same explanation which has been furnished by the assessee in support of its application for condonation of delay. While considering the said application, we have found the explanation to be bona fide and have condoned the delay in filing the present appeal. In our considered view, the same circumstances also have a direct bearing upon the

8 ITA No. 3923/Mum/2026 Pandit Shri Gattulalji Sansthan assessee’s failure to comply with the notices issued during the registration proceedings before the learned CIT(E). 17. It is evident from the impugned order that the assessee’s application was not examined on merits. The learned CIT(E) was unable to record satisfaction regarding the objects of the trust, the genuineness of its activities and the compliance with other applicable laws, only because the requisite documents and explanations were not furnished. Thus, there has been no substantive adjudication of the assessee’s entitlement to registration under section 12AB of the Act. 18. Considering the reasons explained for the earlier non- compliance, the nature of the controversy and the fact that the learned DR has not objected to restoration of the matter, we are of the considered view that the assessee should be granted one more opportunity to place the requisite documents and explanations before the learned CIT(E). Such restoration would also advance the cause of substantial justice without causing any prejudice to the Revenue. 19. Accordingly, we set aside the impugned order dated 19.04.2023 passed by the learned CIT(E), Mumbai, and restore the application filed by the assessee in Form No. 10AB to his file for fresh examination and adjudication in accordance with law. The learned CIT(E) shall afford a reasonable and effective opportunity of being heard to the assessee and shall consider all

9 ITA No. 3923/Mum/2026 Pandit Shri Gattulalji Sansthan the documents and explanations furnished by it before passing a reasoned and speaking order.

Order pronounced in the open court on 07.07.2026.

Sd/- Sd/- (CHALLA NAGENDRA PRASAD) (MAKARAND VASANT MAHADEOKAR) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Mumbai, Dated 07/07/2026 Dhananjay, Sr.PS आदेश की प्रतितिति अग्रेतिि/Copy of the Order forwarded to : अपीलाथी / The Appellant 1. प्रत्यथी / The Respondent. 2. 3. संबंधधत आयकर आयुक्त / The CIT(A) आयकर आयुक्त(अपील) / Concerned CIT 4. धिभागीय प्रधतधनधध, आयकर अपीलीय अधधकरण, मुम्बई / DR, ITAT, Mumbai 5. गार्ड फाईल / Guard file. 6. आदेशानुसार/ BY ORDER, सत्याधपत प्रधत //True Copy// 1. उि/सहायक िंजीकार ( Asst. Registrar) आयकर अिीिीय अतिकरण, मुम्बई / ITAT, Mumbai