SHRI PARSHWA TILAK SHWETAMBER MURTIPUJAK JAIN ,MUMBAI vs. CIT(EXEMPTION), MUMBAI

Procedural provision should be so construed as to sub serve the course and not hindered its justice.

Time line prescribed is directory in nature and not mandatory.

The appellant craves leave to add, alter or delete any ground either before or in the course of hearing of appeal.”

We have heard both the side and perused the material on record. The Assessee is aggrieved by impugned order passed by the Ld. CIT(E) rejecting the application filed by the Assessee in Form No. 10AB for approval under Section 10(23)(c) of the Act on the ground that the same was filed after expiry of the specific period. The contention of the Assessee is that the delay in filing the application Assessment Year 2025-2026 was on account of the fact that the concerned chartered accountant had fail to take necessary steps due to inadvertent oversight. It was submitted by the Learned Authorised Representative for the Assessee that vide Submissions, dated 22/08/2025, filed by the Assessee specific request was made to condone the delay in filing the application even though the power to condone delay was available with the Ld. CIT(E) in view of the Proviso to Section 12A(1)(ac) of the Act [effective from 01/10/2024]. Placing reliance upon the affidavit of the concerned Chartered Accountant [placed at page 11 to 13 of the Paper book] the Learned Authorized Representative for the Assessee submitted that the Assessee had a reasonable cause for not filing the application within time. Therefore, the delay in filing the appeal be condoned by this Tribunal.

Opposing the submissions made by the Learned Authorized Representative for the Assessee, the Learned Departmental Representative submitted that the Tribunal did not have power to condone the delay. It was submitted that since no application seeking condonation of delay was filed by the Assessee, the reliance placed by the Assessee on Proviso to Section 12A(1)(ac) of the Act was misplaced. It was further submitted that the affidavit of the Chartered Accountant on which reliance was placed on behalf ot he Assessee was also not filed before the Ld. CIT(E).

In rejoinder Ld. Authorized Representative for the Assessee submitted that though no separate application for seeking condonation of delay was moved by the Assessee, specific submission seeking condonation of delay in filing the application was made by the Assessee. In this regard reliance was placed on Paragraph 31 of the Written Submission, dated 22/08/2025 filed before the Ld. CIT(E). The Learned Authorized Representative for the Assessee submitted that since the Assessee was not confronted Assessment Year 2025-2026 by the Ld. CIT(E) on the issue of the application being barred by limitation, the Assessee could not file the affidavit of the concerned Chartered Accountant. It was submitted, on a without prejudice basis, that the issue be restored back to the file of the CIT(E) for adjudication on merits after taking into consideration the prayer of the Assessee for condoning delay in filing the application.

Having giving thoughtful consideration to the rival submissions and keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the present case, we are of the view that interest of justice would be served in the case the alternative plea made by Learned Authorized Representative for the Assessee is accepted. We are of the view that Assessee should have been granted an opportunity to explain and substantiate the reasons for delay in filing the application in view of the specific submissions made by the Assessee in this regards in Paragraph 31 of the Written Submissions dated 22/08/2025 filed by the Assessee before the Ld. CIT(E). Accordingly, we set aside the impugned order, dated 25/06/2025, passed by Ld. CIT(E). The Assessee is directed to move appropriate application seeking condonation of delay in filing the application for regularization of the provisional registration under Section 12AB of the Act along with the affidavit of the concerned Chartered Accountant and such other documents as the Assessee may deem fit to establish that there was reasonable cause for delay in filing the application. The Ld. CIT(E) is directed to adjudicate the application in Form 10AB after taking into consideration the result of disposal of aforesaid application seeking condonation of delay filed by the Assessee. It is clarified that the Assessee shall be granted reasonable opportunity of being heard and to place on record relevant documents/details/submissions in support of its contentions. In terms of aforesaid, Ground No.1, 2, 3 and 4 are treated as allowed for statistical purposes while Ground No.5 to 10 are dismissed as having being rendered infructuous.

In terms of Paragraph 6 above, the present appeal preferred by the Assessee is treated as allowed for statistical purposes.