SHRI SWAMI LILASHAH SINDHI SAMAJ SEVA TRUST RAJULA,RAJULA vs. CIT(EXEMPTION) AHMEDABAD, AHMEDABAD

The brief facts of the case are that the assessee trust filed an application for registration (renewal) in Form No. 10AB under section 12A(1)(ac) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 ("the Act") before the learned Commissioner of Income-tax (Exemptions). During the course of proceedings, the CIT (Exemptions) issued notices from time to time calling for details and documents as prescribed under Rule 17A(2) of the Income-tax Rules, 1962 in order to examine the genuineness of activities of the trust and compliance with its objects. However, the CIT (Exemptions) recorded that there was no compliance from the side of

The assessee is in appeal before us against the order passed by CIT (Exemptions) dismissing the application of the assessee.

At the outset, it is observed that the assessee has filed application for condonation of delay along-with an Affidavit for delay of 50 days in filing of the present appeal. Considering the submissions made in the condonation petition and the affidavit filed, wherein it has been explained that the notices and the impugned order were communicated only on the registered e-mail id of the Chartered Accountant and were not brought to the knowledge of the trustees in time, we find that the delay has occurred due to bona fide reasons and not on account of any deliberate inaction or negligence. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Collector, Land Acquisition v. Mst. Katiji (1987) 167 ITR 471 (SC) and N. Balakrishnan v. M. Krishnamurthy (1998) 7 SCC 123 has held that a liberal approach should be adopted in condoning delay so as to advance substantial justice. Respectfully following the same, the delay of 50 days in filing the present appeal is condoned and the application for condonation of delay is allowed.

It is observed that the application of the assessee trust has been rejected primarily on account of non-compliance to notices issued by the CIT (Exemptions). However, it is an undisputed fact emerging from the record, including the affidavit filed by the assessee, that the notices as well as the impugned order were communicated only on the e-mail id of the Chartered Accountant and were not within the actual knowledge of the trustees of the assessee trust. Further, it is also noted that the assessee trust had already been granted provisional registration earlier and the present application was for renewal of such registration. In our considered view, the assessee ought to have been granted a reasonable and effective opportunity of being heard before rejecting the application.

The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Tin Box Company v. CIT (2001) 249 ITR 216 (SC) has held that where adequate opportunity of hearing is not provided, the matter deserves to be restored for fresh adjudication. Similarly, in Andaman Timber Industries v. CCE (2015) 62 taxmann.com 3 (SC), it has been held that denial of proper opportunity amounts to violation of principles of natural justice and vitiates the proceedings.

Considering the totality of facts and in the interest of justice, we deem it appropriate to restore the matter to the file of CIT (Exemptions) with a direction to examine the application of the assessee afresh on merits after providing adequate opportunity of being heard and after

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes. This Order pronounced in Open Court on 23/04/2026