BUNIYAAD,MUMBAI vs. CIT(EXEMPTION), MUMBAI

That the learned CIT(Exemption) failed to appreciate that the notices issued were never actually served upon the Trust. The email address registered on the portal belonged to a former employee of the tax consultant who had left the organization and as such, the Trust was P a g e | 2 A.Y. 2026-27 Buniyaad completely unaware of the proceedings, notices issued and the subsequent rejection of 12A renewal application.

That the appellant Trust has always been compliant with the law and has no mala fide intention in not responding to the notices. The non- compliance was solely due to a technical communication gap and the departure of the staff member from the employment, which constitutes a ‘sufficient cause’ for the non attendance.

That the learned CIT(Exemption) erred in rejecting the application filed in Form 10AB solely on technical grounds/non-response, without examining the genuineness of the activities and the charitable objects of the Trust as required under Section 12AB.

That the learned CIT(Exemption) failed to consider the principle of substantive justice over technicalities, which is paramount in the case of charitable organizations. The learned CIT(Exemption) ought to have appreciated that for a charitable institution, registration is a substantive right. Denying it based on a procedural oversight (outdated contact details) results in a miscarriage of justice and prevents the Trust from carrying out its charitable objects. The Tribunal is requested to adopt a liberal and pragmatic approach and allow the appeal by restoring the matter back to the CIT(Exemption) far de novo proceedings u/s 12A of the Act.

At the outset, it was noticed that the instant appeal is delayed by 80 days. In this regard a condonation application has been filed alongwith an affidavit by the Managing Trustee Ms. Revathi Balchandran contending that the email address registered on the Income Tax Portal belonged to a former employee of the tax consultant who left the organization. Due to the departure of said employee, the Trust did not receive or view the notices issued by the CIT during the proceedings. The Trust only became aware of the rejection order when logged in to the portal for checking the status of 12A renewal application filed. The delay in filing the present appeal was solely attributable to this P a g e | 3 A.Y. 2026-27 Buniyaad technical communication gap and was neither intentional nor a result of gross negligence. No physical notice was received by the trust for 12A proceedings.

On careful consideration of the submissions of the assessee, we are of the considered opinion that the delay in filing of the present appeal was not intentional but due to certain miscommunication which could be considered a „sufficient cause‟. In this connection, reliance could be placed on the landmark decision of hon‟ble Supreme Court which inter alia held in Collector, Land Acquisition v Mst. Katiji And Others- 167 ITR 471 (SC) that “ordinarily, a litigant does not stand to benefit by lodging an appeal late……..Refusing to condone delay can result in a meritorious matter being thrown out at the very threshold and cause of justice being defeated….Any appeal or any application, other than an application under any of the provisions of Order XXI of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, may be admitted after the prescribed period if the appellant or the applicant satisfies the court that he had sufficient cause for not preferring the appeal or making the application within such period…. A litigant does not stand to benefit by resorting to delay. In fact, he runs serious risk.” We therefore, condone the delay and proceed to adjudicate the grounds on merit.

Briefly stated facts of the case are that the assessee Trust filed an application on 10.04.2025 in Form 10AB u/s 12A(1)(ac)(ii) seeking renewal of registration under section 12AB of the Act. On verification of the application in Form 10AB filed, it was found by the ld.CIT(E) that the application was not complete, and all the documents required to be accompanying the application were not furnished. Hence, a notice was issued to the applicant requesting the applicant to furnish complete set of documents mentioned in Rule 17A(2). However, no response was received in this regard. Similarly, there was no response to another two notices. The ld.CIT(E) observed that since registration under section 12AB was to be granted in terms of the provisions of section 12AB(1)(b) of the Act after being satisfied about the objects of the trust or institution, the genuineness of activities, and the compliance of any other law for the time being in force as are material for the purposes of achieving its objects, in the absence of necessary compliance by the applicant, he could not arrive at a satisfactory conclusion on these parameters and was left with no other option but to reject the application seeking registration under section 12AB of the Act. Accordingly, the application for grant of registration was rejected on the grounds of non-compliance.

On careful consideration of all relevant facts of the case, we also feel that the case needs reconsideration in the interest of justice and fairplay. Accordingly, the impugned order is set aside and the matter is sent back to the ld.CIT(E) for fresh consideration and passing of de novo order. Needless to state he would allow adequate opportunity of hearing to the assessee. Thus, the grounds of appeal are allowed for statistical purposes.

In the result, the aforesaid appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes.