DR. JANARDAN SHANKAR MULYE PUBLIC ,PUNE vs. CIT(E) WD-2(1), PUNE

PDF · subscribers
ITA 769/PUN/2026Status: DisposedITAT Pune24 June 20264 pages
AI SummaryDismissed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal found the assessee's explanation for the delay to be insufficient and unsubstantiated. The assessee failed to provide details of the tax consultant or evidence for the outdated email address, leading the Tribunal to conclude there was no sufficient cause for the delay.

What were the facts?

The assessee filed an appeal before the ITAT with a delay of 661 days against an order rejecting their registration application. The assessee claimed the delay was due to a tax consultant not informing them of the rejection and communications being sent to an outdated email address.

What were the issues?

Whether there was sufficient cause for the inordinate delay in filing the appeal before the ITAT, and if the delay should be condoned.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 12A,Section 12AB

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, PUNE BENCH “A”, PUNE

Before: SHRI Dr. DIPAK P. RIPOTE & SHRI VINAY BHAMOREDr. Janardan Shankar Mulye Public Trust,

For Appellant: Shri Sarang Gudhate
For Respondent: Shri Mithun Shete

आदेश /ORDER

PER Dr. DIPAK P. RIPOTE, A.M : This is an appeal filed by the Assessee against the order of the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemption), Pune [Ld.CIT(E)] rejecting registration u/s 12A r.w.s. 12AB of the Income Tax Act, 1961.

Submission of Ld. AR:

2.

The Ld. AR admitted that there was a delay of 661 days in filing of the appeal before this Tribunal. The Ld. AR invited our attention to the affidavit filed on behalf of the assessee for condonation of delay by Mr. Amey Suresh Kulkarni, Authorized Signatory. Ld. AR vehemently pleaded that there was sufficient cause for delay, hence, pleaded that delay may be condoned. Ld. AR relied on the order of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Collector Land Acquisition Vs. MST. Katiji & Ors., 167 ITR 471 (SC).

ITA No.769/PUN/2026

Submission of Ld. DR:

3.

The Ld. DR vehemently opposed the condonation of delay. The Ld. DR submitted that assessee had not filed any details before the Ld. CIT(E) and hence, Ld. CIT(E) rejected assessee’s application for registration u/s 12A r.w.s. 12AB of the Act.

Findings and analysis:

4.

We have heard both the parties and perused the record. In this case rejection order was passed by the Ld. CIT(E) on 06.02.2024. Assessee filed appeal before the ITAT on 30.01.2026. Admittedly, there was a delay of 661 days in filing of the appeal before this Tribunal. We have perused the affidavit filed by Amey Suresh Kulkarni, Authorized Signatory on behalf of the assessee for condonation of delay. The relevant paragraphs of the affidavit are reproduced here as under : “3. That thereafter, trust has applied for regular registration u/s 12A in Form 10AB on 20th September 2023. However, assessee's said application was rejected by Order passed in Form 10AD on 06th February 2024. 4. That we had appointed a tax consultant to handle and manage all income-tax-related matters and were under the bona fide belief that he was diligently attending to and complying with all proceedings initiated against trust. 5. That the said consultant has not informed us about the issuance of any notices and about the passing of 12A Registration Rejection Order. 7. That we later came to know that several communications, including notices and the 12A Registration Rejection Order, were sent to an outdated email address and mobile number which were no longer active or accessible at the relevant time, and as a result, no alerts were received by us in time.”

4.1 We have carefully studied the affidavit. In the affidavit, it has been vaguely mentioned that the assessee had appointed Tax Consultant to handle the Income Tax matters who did not inform the assessee regarding rejection order. Nowhere in the affidavit, the name of the Tax Consultant has been mentioned. We specifically asked Mr. Sarang Gudhate, Chartered Accountant who appeared on behalf of the assessee, to specify the name of the Tax Consultant referred in the affidavit. Mr. Gudhate could not answer our question. We also asked the Ld. AR whether any action has been taken by the assessee against the impugned Tax

ITA No.769/PUN/2026

Consultant for professional misconduct, has the assessee informed either the Bar Counsel of India or Institute of Chartered Accountant regarding the professional misconduct. Mr. Gudhate, the Ld. AR could not answer our question. Thus, assessee has not bothered to mention name of the Tax Consultant alleged to have been not communicated the relevant order. Assessee has not bothered to lodge a complaint with the appropriate authority for professional misconduct by the Tax Consultant. In these facts and circumstances of the case, the content of the affidavit are not true fully.

4.2 Assessee has also alleged in the affidavit that notices were received on inoperative email id. However, in the affidavit assessee has failed to specify the impugned email id. Assessee has not brought on record any documentary evidence to prove the same. Assessee has also not brought on record any documentary evidence to prove that assessee has taken any pro-active steps to inform the Department any additional email id.

4.3 For all the reasons mentioned above, we are satisfied that there was no sufficient cause for inordinate delay in filing of the appeal. The case laws relied by the assessee are distinguishable on facts as delay needs to be appreciated based on facts of each case. In this case, we have elaborated the facts and our reasoning for not condoning the delay.

4.4 Accordingly, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed on account of delay.

5.

In the result, the appeal of the Assessee is dismissed.

Order pronounced in the open Court on 24th June, 2026

Sd/- Sd/- (VINAY BHAMORE) (Dr. DIPAK P. RIPOTE) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER

पुणे/Pune; दिन ांक/Dated : 24-06-2026 Digitally signed by Ravi Ravi Kumar Ravi Kumar Kumar Date: 2026.06.25 11:38:11 +05'30'

ITA No.769/PUN/2026

आदेश की प्रतितिति अग्रेतिि/Copy of the Order is forwarded to: 1. अपील र्थी / The Appellant 2. प्रत्यर्थी / The Respondent 3. The concerned Pr. CIT, Pune 4. DR, ITAT, ‘A’ Bench, Pune 5. ग र्ड फ ईल / Guard file. आदेशानुसार/ BY ORDER, // True Copy // Assistant Registrar आयकर अपीलीय अदिकरण ,पुणे / ITAT, Pune

More judgments on Section 12A

All 6,064 judgments and leading authorities on Section 12A →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →