Loading judgment…
Facts
The assessee company, formed in 2013, obtained provisional registration u/s 80G and 12A in 2021. They filed Form 10AB for fresh registration but these were rejected by the CIT(E) for failing to provide necessary documents. The assessee then filed appeals before the ITAT.
Held
The Tribunal held that the appeals were time-barred by 558 days and that the assessee had not filed an application for condonation of delay nor provided sufficient cause. Additionally, Form 36 was not signed by the Managing Director.
Key Issues
Whether the appeals filed by the assessee were maintainable due to delay and lack of proper documentation and signature on Form 36.
Sections Cited
80G, 12AB, 12A(1)(ac)(iii), 80G(5)
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, MUMBAI BENCH “A”, MUMBAI
Before: SHRI OM PRAKASH KANT & SHRI RAJ KUMAR CHAUHAN
(N.A.) A Book of Child Dream CIT (Exemption), Foundation Vs. 601, 6th floor, Cumballa Hill 23, Dattani Centre Akurli Road, MTNL TE Building, Pedder Opp-Kandivali Station, Kandivali, Road, Dr. Gopalrao Deshmukh East, Mumbai-400 101 Marg, Cumballa Hill, Mumbai- PAN: AAVCA1992M 400 026 (Appellant) (Respondent)
Assessee Represented by : None Department Represented by : Shri Rajesh Kumar Yadav, Ld. DR Date of conclusion of Hearing : 07.08.2025 Date of Pronouncement : 12.08.2025
O R D E R PER RAJ KUMAR CHAUHAN (J.M.): 1. Both the appeals are filed by the appellant/assessee against the order of Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemptions), Mumbai [hereinafter referred to as the “CIT(E)”], passed under section 80G(5) and section 12AB of the Income Tax Act, 1961 [hereinafter referred to as “the Act”] respectively vide even order dated 12.10.2023, wherein the applications of the assessee for registration u/s 80G and approval u/s 12AB were rejected by the Ld. CIT(E).
Since the facts of both the appeals filed by the assessee are exactly same and parties are same, hence both the appeals are taken up together in order to avoid the multiplicity of the decision.
The brief facts as culled out from the proceedings before the authorities below are that the assessee company is formed u/s 8 as per Companies Act, 2013 on 11th May 2021 with an object of Relief of the Poor Education, Medical Relief, Preservation of Environment, Advancement of any other objects of general public utility. The provisional registration u/s 80G of the Act and 12A of the Act was received by the assessee on 24.09.2021 for three years i.e. AY 2022-23 to AY 2024-25. The appellant has filed form 10AB under clause (iii) of first proviso to sub-section (5) of section 80G of the Act dated 31.03.2023 and another Form 10AB u/s 12A(1)(ac)(iii) of the Act dated 31.03.2023 and the same were rejected by the Ld. CIT(E) vide order dated 02.09.2023 respectively on the ground that Page | 2 the appellant /assessee has failed to file necessary documents as found mentioned in para 4 of the impugned order.
Aggrieved by the impugned order of Ld. CIT (E), the assessee preferred the appeals before us on 10.06.2025 wherein the registry has raised an objection that both the appeals are time barred and delayed by 558 days and Form No. 36 are not signed by the Managing Director. The notice of these appeals were issued on 18.06.2025 which was duly served by email on 28.07.2025 and as per the endorsement made, no one appeared on 28.07.2025, the matter was adjourned to 07.08.2025. The appellant has neither taken any steps for seeking condonation of delay of 558 days in filing the appeal nor taken any steps for getting Form 36 signed by the Managing Director /Authorized Representative. Thus, the deficiency in filing the appeals as pointed out by the Registry remained unresolved and no one appeared at the time of hearing.
Ld. DR submitted that no one assisted the Tribunal on behalf of the appellant as they preferred to remain absent during the hearing of the matter. The Ld. DR has strongly objected to the condonation of delay stating that the inordinate delay of 588 days is neither explained nor there is sufficient cause made out by the appellant for condonation of delay. The Page | 3 Ld. DR further submitted that Form 36 is also not signed by the appellant or by the Managing Director. Therefore, Ld. DR submitted that the appeals are liable to be dismissed.
We have heard the Ld. DR and examined the record. Admittedly, the appellant/assessee has not filed an application for seeking condonation of delay and the appellant has failed to show any sufficient cause for condonation of delay in filing the appeals before the Tribunal. Apart from that in both the appeals, Form 36 has not been signed by the Managing Director.
For the above reasons, we are of the considered opinion that the appeals are liable to be dismissed in limini without admitting the same for hearing because the Form 36 in both the appeals are not signed by the Managing Director and the appellant has also failed to show any sufficient cause for condonation of delay in filing the appeals. Accordingly, the appeals filed by the assessee are dismissed in limini as having not found fit for admission.
In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee are dismissed in limini as having not found fit for admission. Page | 4