PARSEE EDUCATION SOCIETY,AHMEDABAD vs. THE CIT(EXEMPTION), AHMEDABAD

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “D” BENCH, AHMEDABAD BEFORE: SMT. ANNAPURNA GUPTA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI SIDDHARTHA NAUTIYAL, JUDICIAL MEMBER आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 2316/Ahd/2025 (िनधा�रण वष� / Assessment Year : NA) बनाम/ Parsee Education Society The CIT (Exemption), Vs. C/o Gul N Daboo, Ahmedabad Nr. Gujarat Samachar, Khanpur, Ahmedabad, Gujarat-380001

�थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./PAN/GIR No. : ΑΑΑΤΡ1818P (Appellant) .. (Respondent) अपीलाथ� ओर से /Appellant by : Shri S.N. Divatia, AR & Shri Samir Vora, AR ��यथ� क� ओर से/Respondent by : Shri Sher Singh, CIT-DR Date of Hearing 25/03/2026 Date of Pronouncement 23/04/2026 (आदेश)/ORDER PER ANNAPURNA GUPTA, AM:

The present appeal has been filed by the assessee against the order of the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemption), Ahmedabad (hereinafter referred to as “CIT(E)”) dated 18.08.2023 rejecting the Assessee’s application seeking grant of registration under Section 12AB of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the “Act”).

I.T.A. No. 2316/Ahd/2025 Parsee Education Society Vs. The CIT(E) - 2 – 2. The grounds raised by the assessee are as under:

“1.1 The order passed u/s.12A(1)(ac)(v) on 18.08.2023 by CIT(Exem), Ahmedabad rejecting the application in Form 10AB for registration u/s 12AB due to modification of the objects as not maintainable is wholly illegal, unlawful and against the principles of natural justice. 2.1 The 1d. CIT(Exem), has grievously erred in law and or on facts in not appreciating that the appellant trust could not respond to the single opportunity allowed vide letter dtd. 17.07.2023 for a sufficient cause and thus there was gross violation of the principles of natural justice. 2.2 That the in the facts and circumstances of the 1d. CIT (Exem), ought not to have rejected the application in Form 10AB u/s.12A(1) (ac) (v) for registration of the appellant trust due to modification of the objects as not maintainable on account of failure to respond to the notice dtd. 17.07.2023. 3.1 That the in the facts and circumstances of the 1d. CIT (Exem), ought to have held that it was maintainable and allowed fresh registration in respect of application in Form 10AB u/s.12A(1) (ac)(v).” 3. The appeal is noted by the Registry to be delayed for filing before us for 759 days.

“1. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the order dated 18.08.2023 passed by CIT(Exemption), Ahmedabad dismissing the application in Form 10AB u/s 12A(1)(ac)(v) as non-maintainable the applicant has filed appeal before Appellate Tribunal on 11.2025 being ITA No./AHD/2025. 2. The applicant states that the impugned order was passed by CIT(Exemption) vide its order passed on 18.08.2023 which was

I.T.A. No. 2316/Ahd/2025 Parsee Education Society Vs. The CIT(E) - 3 – uploaded by Department on 18.08.2023 on IT Portal. However, the applicant came to know about the said order recently on or about last week of October, 2025. The applicant submits that since the precise date of communication is not available with him, date of passing this order is taken as date of e-communication i.e. 18.08.2023 and therefore the appeal was required to be filed on or before 17.10.2023 before Tribunal However, the same was filed on 21.11.2025 and thus there is a delay of 763 days in preferring the said appeal. The delay in filing the same has been caused due to the sufficient reasons as stated herein below: 3. The applicant states that the accountant of the applicant trust namely viz. Pravinkumar Keshavlal Patel of 1184, Shreejikrupa, Luhar Sheri, Saraspur, Ahmedabad is looking after the work relating to accounting and tax of the trust for last many years. Even the primary email id registered on the IT Portal of the applicant trust is nndppatel@gmail.com so that he is receiving all the communications from Department. However, the said accountant does not check emails daily. Therefore, the email relating to the notice issued on 17.07.2023 by the respondent as well as the impugned order escaped his attention through oversight and inadvertent mistake. 4. That when the said accountant approached the tax consultant viz. C.A. Shri Nilay B. Desai in the month of October end for preparation and filing of IT return of the applicant trust, the said tax consultant on surfing on the said portal, noticed that the impugned order rejecting Form 10AB was passed by the respondent already on 18.08.2023 and therefore, the refund for AY 2024-25 was not issued. Thus, both the applicant as well as his tax consultant came to know about the passing of order u/s 12A(1)(ac)(v) only upon inquiry made at the time of preparation and filing of ITR for AY 2025-26 in the last week of October, 2025. 5 The delay in filing the appeal is neither deliberate nor by any negligence so that if the delay is not condoned, the applicant will suffer irreparable loss and injury. On the other hand, if the delay is condoned, the Respondent will not suffer in any way. Therefore, the delay caused due to genuine and bona fide reasons is required to be condoned in the interest of justice and equity. 6.1 It is now well settled position in law in the case of N. Balakrishnan v. M. Krishnamurthy, (1998) (7 SCC 123) for the proposition that rules of limitation are not meant to destroy the rights of parties. They are meant to see that parties do not resort to dilatory tactics, but seek their remedy promptly. The object of providing a legal remedy is to repair the damage caused by reason of legal injury. The law of limitation fixes a lifespan for such legal

I.T.A. No. 2316/Ahd/2025 Parsee Education Society Vs. The CIT(E) - 4 – remedy for the redress of the legal injury so suffered. Time is precious and wasted time would never revisit. 6.2 Reliance upon the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of B. Madhuri Goud v. B. Damodar Reddy, (2012) 12 SCC 693, for the proposition that the Limitation Act has not been enacted with the object of destroying the rights of the parties but to ensure that they approach the court for vindication of their rights without unreasonable delay. The idea underlying the concept of limitation is that every remedy should remain alive only till the expiry of the period fixed by the legislature. At the same time, the courts are empowered to condone the delay provided that sufficient cause is shown by the applicant for not availing the remedy within the prescribed period of limitation. The expression "sufficient cause" used in section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963 and other statutes is elastic enough to enable the courts to apply the law in a meaningful manner which serves the ends of justice. No hard-and-fast rule has been or can be laid down for deciding the applications for condonation of delay but over the years courts have repeatedly observed that a liberal approach needs to be adopted in such matters so that substantive rights of the parties are not defeated only on the ground of delay. The decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Mahadev Govind Gharge and Others v. Special Land Acquisition Officer, Upper Krishna Project, Jamkhandi, Karnataka, (2011) 6 SCC 321, was cited for the proposition that the consistent view taken by the Supreme Court is that the provisions of a statute are normally construed to achieve the ends of justice, advance the interest of public and to avoid multiplicity of litigation. 6.3 The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Collector, Land Acquisition v. Mst. Katiji (1987) 167 ITR 471 (SC) has emphasized that substantial Justice should prevail and that technical considerations should not defeat adjudication on merits. In N. Balakrishnan v. M. Krishnamurthy (1998) 7 SCC 123, the Court held that the primary consideration is whether the explanation for delay is bona fide. Similarly, in Improvement Trust, Ludhiana v. Ujagar Singh (2010) 6 SCC 786, the Supreme Court reiterated that denial of condonation should be an exception rather than a rule, especially where refusal leads to denial of justice. 7. In view of above, the applicant humbly prays that Hon'ble Tribunal may be pleased (a) To condone the delay in preferring the Appeal against the Impugned order passed by the CIT(Exemption) on 18.08.2023.”

I.T.A. No. 2316/Ahd/2025 Parsee Education Society Vs. The CIT(E) - 5 – 5. We have noted that the CIT (Exemptions) has rejected the Assessee’s application seeking grant of registration under Section 12AB of the Act on account of non-cooperation of the Assessee in the proceedings before him. The order of the CIT (Exemptions) reveals that the Assessee had filed the impugned application seeking registration on account of the fact that certain modifications had been undertaken to the objects of the Assessee - Trust and, therefore, as per the provisions of Section 12A(1)(ac)(v) of the Act, the Assessee was required to seek registration afresh.

5.1 The CIT (Exemptions) noted that the Assessee had not submitted any proof regarding adoption or undertaking modification of the objects, and other details were also not filed. Therefore, he rejected the Assessee’s application seeking registration.

I.T.A. No. 2316/Ahd/2025 Parsee Education Society Vs. The CIT(E) - 6 – 6.1 It has been stated that the accountant failed to take note of the notice issued on 17.07.2023 by the learned CIT (Exemptions) and also the order passed by him on 18.08.2023 rejecting the Assessee’s application. That it was only in the month of October, 2025 that when they approached the tax consultant for filing of IT Returns, the tax consultant noted the order passed rejecting the Assessee’s application and, therefore, the refund for A.Y. 2024- 2025 not being issued to the Assessee and immediately thereafter steps were taken to file the appeal before us which was done on 28.11.2025. An affidavit of the accountant Shri Pravin Kumar Keshavlal Patel, was also filed before us confirming the facts as stated in the affidavit of the Assessee-Trust that his e-mail address was provided to the Department for communication in matters relating to the Assessee and that he did not check his emails regularly and, therefore, missed out on the notice issued by the learned CIT (Exemptions) as also the order passed by him. He also affirmed to the fact that he became aware of the passing of the order only when he contacted the tax consultant of the Assessee in October 2025 for filing the return for A.Y. 2025-26.

6.2 It was stated before us that the learned CIT (Exemptions) had incorrectly noted that the Assessee had not demonstrated before him any change in its objects.

6.3 Learned counsel for the Assessee pointed out that all necessary documents reflecting the change in the objects of the Assessee Trust were filed along with Form No. 10AB seeking

I.T.A. No. 2316/Ahd/2025 Parsee Education Society Vs. The CIT(E) - 7 – registration afresh. Our attention was drawn to the acknowledgment receipt of Form No. 10AB dated 25.03.2023 placed before us as submitted at page no. 37 reflecting the following documents filed along with Form No. 10AB:

I.T.A. No. 2316/Ahd/2025 Parsee Education Society Vs. The CIT(E) - 8 – such accounts have been made up and self certified copy of the report of audit as per the provisions of section 44AB for such period in case where section code is other than 13 or 14 in raw number 2 9. Where the income of the applicant includes - profits, and gains of business as per the provisions of sub-section (4A) of section 11 and the applicant has been in existence during any year or years prior to the financial year in which the application for registration is made, self certified copies of the annual accounts of such business relating to such prior year or years (not being more than three years immediately preceding the year in which the said application is made) for which such accounts have been made up and self certified copy of the report of audit as per the provisions of section 44AB for such period In case where section code is other than 13 or 14 in row number 2 10. Self-certified copy of the documents evidencing parsi education adoption or modification of the objects: society (1).pdf 11. Self-certified copy of existing Notification - granting approval under section 35: 12. Any other (Please Specify): - 6.4 Our attention was specifically drawn to the certified copy of documents, evidencing adoption or modification of objects filed to the CIT (Exemptions). It was also pointed out that the only change in the objects was that while earlier, the objects included running a primary school by the trust and to encourage primary schools by the trust, it was now changed to run along with primary schools, high schools, pre-university colleges, degree colleges, post-graduation colleges, colleges of engineering, pharmacy, etc.

6.5 Our attention was also drawn to the English translation of the old trust deed placed before us at paper book page no. 11 and that

I.T.A. No. 2316/Ahd/2025 Parsee Education Society Vs. The CIT(E) - 9 – of the new trust deed placed before us at paper book page no. 29 reflecting the aforesaid change.

6.6 It was also pointed out that the Assessee-Trust was a very old trust registered under the BPT Act on 17.10.1952, granted certificate of registration under Section 12AA of the Act from 01.11.1998 and had been granted provisional registration under Section 12A in Form 10AC on 28.05.2021 from A.Y. 2022-23 to A.Y. 2026-27.

I.T.A. No. 2316/Ahd/2025 Parsee Education Society Vs. The CIT(E) - 10 – 9. It is amply clear, therefore, that the Assessee is law- compliant. The only lapse on its part which occurred is that after filing for seeking fresh registration the Assessee failed to participate in the proceedings before the CIT(Exemptions) for grant of the same and also failed to file appeal against the order passed by the learned CIT(Exemptions) rejecting its application in time and filed with a delay of 759 days before us.

I.T.A. No. 2316/Ahd/2025 Parsee Education Society Vs. The CIT(E) - 11 – the appeal before us as also for not participating in the proceedings before the CIT (Exemptions). A law-compliant Assessee would never have ignored notices issued and also the order passed by a statutory authority.

This Order pronounced on 23/04/2026

Sd/- Sd/- (SIDDHARTHA NAUTIYAL) (ANNAPURNA GUPTA) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Ahmedabad; Dated 23/04/2026 DS True Copy आदेश क� �ितिल�प अ�े�षत/Copy of the Order forwarded to : 1. अपीलाथ� / The Appellant ��यथ� / The Respondent. 2. संबंिधत आयकर आयु� / Concerned CIT 3. आयकर आयु�(अपील) / The CIT(A)- 4. �वभागीय �ितिनिध, आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, अहमदाबाद / DR, ITAT, Ahmedabad 5. 6. गाड� फाईल / Guard file. आदेशानुसार/ BY ORDER,

उप/सहायक पंजीकार (Dy./Asstt. Registrar) आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, अहमदाबाद / ITAT, Ahmedabad