ANNASAHEB KADAM PATIL SHREE VA GRAM VIKAS PRATISTHAN,AHEMEDNAGAR vs. THE CIT EXEMPTION, PUNE

There is a delay of 272 days in filing of both the appeals before the Tribunal for which the assessee has filed separate condonation applications along with affidavits explaining the reasons for such delay which is due to receipt of the

The Ld. DR on the other hand strongly opposed the condonation applications filed by the assessee.

We have heard the rival arguments made by both the sides on the issue of delay in filing of the appeals and considered the contents of the condonation applications filed along with the affidavits of the assessee.

We find the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Collector, Land Acquisition vs. Mst. Katiji & Ors. reported in 167 ITR 471 (SC) has held that when substantial justice and technical considerations are pitted against each other, cause of substantial justice deserves to be preferred for the other side cannot claim to have vested right in injustice being done because of a non-deliberate delay. Refusing to condone delay can result in a meritorious matter being thrown out at the very threshold and cause of justice being defeated. As against this when delay is condoned the highest that can happen is that a cause would be decided on merits after hearing the parties.

We find recently the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Inder Singh Vs. The State of Madhya Pradesh reported in 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 339 has held as under:

We find recently the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Vidya Shankar Jaiswal vs. ITO vide Special Leave Petition (Civil) Nos.26310-26311/2024 order dated 31.01.2025 has held that a justice oriented and liberal approach ought to be adopted while considering the aspect of condoning the delay involved in filing of the appeal.

Considering the totality of the facts of the case and in the light of the decisions of Hon’ble Supreme Court cited (supra), the delay in filing of both the appeals is condoned and the appeals are admitted for adjudication.

Facts of the case, in brief, are that the assessee filed an application in Form No.10AB on 20.05.2024 for registration of the trust under clause (iii) of section 12A(1)(ac) of the Act. With a view to verify the genuineness of the activities of the assessee and compliance to requirements of any other law for the time being in force by the trust / institution as are material for the purpose of achieving its objects, a notice was issued through ITBA portal on 24.06.2024 requesting the assessee to upload certain information / clarification. Since the assessee did not respond to the said notice, another notice was issued on 13.09.2024. Thereafter,

Since he rejected the grant of registration u/s 12A of the Act and cancelled the provisional registration granted earlier, he refused to grant approval u/s 80G of the Act.

Aggrieved with such order of CIT(Exemption), the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal by raising the following grounds: 1. The learned CIT(Exemption), Pune; erred in law and on facts in rejecting appellant's application dated 29/10/2024 for registration under section 12A/12AB of ITA, 1961. 2. The learned CIT (Exemption), Pune, erred in law and on facts in not providing sufficient reasonable opportunity of being heard to the appellant, as provided u/s 12AB of the ITA, 1961; to submit the details/information. Appellant contends that, Appellant is keen to ensure complete and total compliance as so required, and the present situation is simply a fall-out of communication gap. 3. The learned CIT (Exemption), Pune, ought to have appreciated that appellant's activities are genuine and bonafide, and as such, eligible for registration u/s 12A of ITA, 1961. 4. Appellant craves leave to add, alter, clarify, explain, modify, delete any or all of the grounds of appeal, and to seek any just and fair relief.

The Ld. Counsel for the assessee at the time of hearing filed a paper book and submitted that although the assessee has filed various details on 30.09.2024 before the Ld. CIT(E), however, he has not considered the same. He submitted

The Ld. DR on the other hand heavily relied on the order of the Ld. CIT(E).

We have heard the rival arguments made by both the sides, perused the order of the Ld. CIT(E) and the paper book filed on behalf of the assessee. It is an admitted fact that the assessee has furnished certain details before the Ld. CIT(E) but not the full details for which the Ld. CIT(E) held that the assessee has not filed the requisite details and rejected the application for grant of registration and also cancelled the provisional registration granted earlier. It is the submission of the Ld. Counsel for the assessee that given an opportunity the assessee is in a position to substantiate its case by filing all the relevant details before the Ld. CIT(E). Considering the totality of the facts of the case and in the interest of justice, we deem it proper to restore the issue to the file of the Ld. CIT(E) with a direction to grant one final opportunity to the assessee to substantiate its case by filing the requisite details to his satisfaction and decide the issue as per fact and law. The assessee is also hereby directed to submit the details as called for by the Ld. CIT(E) on the appointed date without seeking any adjournment under any pretext, failing which the Ld. CIT(E) is at liberty to pass appropriate order as per law. We hold and direct accordingly. The grounds raised by the assessee are accordingly allowed for statistical purposes.

Grounds raised by the assessee are as under: 1. The learned CIT (Exemption), Pune; erred in law and on facts in rejecting appellant's application dated 29/10/2024 for registration under section 80G of ITA, 1961. 2. The learned CIT (Exemption), Pune; erred in law and on facts in not providing reasonable opportunity of being heard to the appellant; to submit the details / information. As such, the rejection order passed by the learned CIT (Exemption), Pune; is bad in law and needs to be set-aside. Appellant contends that, Appellant is keen to ensure complete and total compliance as so required, and the present situation is simply a fall-out of communication gap 3. The learned CIT (Exemption), Pune; ought to have appreciated that appellant's activities are genuine and bonafide, and as such, eligible for registration u/s 80G of ITA, 1961. 4. Appellant craves leave to add, alter, clarify, explain, modify, delete any or all of the grounds of appeal, and to seek any just and fair relief.

After hearing both the sides, we find the Ld. CIT(E) rejected the application for grant of approval u/s 80G by observing as under: “7.1 In the instant case it is noticed that the assessee has neither furnished a copy of regular registration u/s 12AB read with section 12A(1)(ac)(i)/12A(1)(ac)(iii) nor any copy of regular approval under section 10(23C) read with clause (i) / (iii) of first proviso to the said section and the case is not covered under the exclusions provided vide proviso to clause (i) of section 80G(5) of the Act. The copy of order furnished by the assessee is actually an order of provisional approval under section 12AB read with section 12A(1)(ac) (vi) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The assessee is not approved under section 10(23AA) of the Act. The assessee is also not a Regimental Fund or Non-Public Fund established by the armed forces of the Union for the welfare of the past and present members of such forces or their dependents. In fact, the application of the assessee in form No.10AB for registration u/s 12AB filed under the provisions of section 12A(1)(ac) (iii) of the Act has been rejected vide order dated 29-10-2024. Therefore, the condition (i) of section 80G(5) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 is also not fulfilled in this case. 8. In view of the above, the undersigned is not unable to draw any satisfaction about the genuineness of activities of the assessee and compliance to requirements of any other law for the time being in force by the trust/institution as are material for the purpose of achieving its objects. Therefore, the application filed by the assessee is hereby rejected and the provisional approval granted on 07/04/2022 under section 80G(5)(vi) read with clause (iv) of first proviso to section 80G(5) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 is hereby cancelled.”

Since we have already restored the issue of grant of registration u/s 12AB to the file of the Ld. CIT(E) for fresh adjudication, therefore, we restore the issue of grant of approval u/s 80G also to his file for fresh adjudication with similar directions. The grounds raised by the assessee are accordingly allowed for statistical purposes.

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes.