SHRIJAL WELFARE FOUNDATION,SANTACRUZ (EAST) vs. CIT (EXEMPTION) MUMBAI, CUMBALLA HILL

PER OM PRAKASH KANT, AM

These two appeals by the assessee are directed against two separate orders, both dated 22.05.2024, passed by the Ld.
Commissioner of Income-tax (Exemptions), Mumbai [in short ‘the Ld. CIT(E)’] rejecting application of the assessee u/s 12AA and 80G of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (in short ‘the Act’).

reshold, the learned counsel fo present appeals have been in n application for condonation of by an explanation for the said delay occurred for multiple bon tion of the Chartered Accoun s taxation matters, for whom e secured; secondly, the authori ali Shroff, was unaware of t nsequently, the statutory notice ncome Tax (Exemptions) [CI thirdly, she was preoccupied efore other judicial forum, the l
Court rejected affidavit
Filed Application for stay and interim
Stay was granted
Khed Judge Vacated stay
Government should be a party to th
High Court
High Court judgment, in favor of the A he application for condonation o by the appellant on variou
Hon’ble Courts.
s of both parties have been record carefully perused. The r considered view, constitute ‘s rijal Welfare Foundation
2
824 & 2825/MUM/2025
or the appellant nstituted with a f delay has been d delay. It was na fide reasons:
ntant who was m no immediate ised signatory of the registration es issued by the IT(E)] remained d with multiple ist of which has relief in Khed Court he Suit in appeal in Appellant.
of delay, reliance us authoritative heard and the reasons cited for sufficient cause’

within the meaning evaluating sufficiency
Supreme Court in th
Katiji AIR (1987) 1
principles:
(i)
Ordinarily, a litigan
(ii)
Refusing to condon very threshold and condoned the high after hearing the pa
(iii)
"Every day's delay should be taken. W must be applied in (iv)
When substantial j cause of substantia have vested right in (v)
There is no presu culpable negligence by resorting to dela
(vi)
It must be grasped injustice on technic expected to do so."
3.1 Further, the Ho
India Insurance Co
507 (SC) held that w taint of mala fide or e present, legal advice treated as sufficient
Hon’ble Supreme Cou
Sao, AIR 2002 SC 1
Shr
ITA Nos. 28

g of Section 5 of the Limita y of cause for condonation of de he case of Collector of Land
67 ITR 471 (SC) has laid dow nt does not stand to benefit by lodging an app ne delay can result in a meritorious matter be d cause of justice being defeated. As agains hest that can happen is that a cause would arties.
y must be explained" does not mean that Why not every hour's delay, every second's a rational common-sense pragmatic manner.
justice and technical considerations are pitte al justice deserves to be preferred for the othe n injustice being done because of a non-delibe umption that delay is occasioned deliberate e, or on account of mala fides. A litigant doe ay. In fact, he runs a serious risk.
d that judiciary is respected not on account of cal grounds but because it is capable of rem n’ble Supreme Court in the cas
. Ltd. v. Smt. Nirmala Devi ( what is to be looked into is whet element of recklessness or ruse honestly sought and actually cause for condoning the dela urt in the case of Ram Nath Sao
1201 held that by taking a ped rijal Welfare Foundation
3
824 & 2825/MUM/2025
ation Act. For elay, the Hon’ble
Acquisition v.
wn following six peal late.
eing thrown out at the st this when delay is be decided on merits a pedantic approach s delay? The doctrine ed against each other, er side cannot claim to erate delay.
ely, or on account of es not stand to benefit of its power to legalize moving injustice and is e of Concord of 1979) 118 ITR ther there is any and if neither is given, must be ay. Further, the o v. Gobardhan dantic or hyper- technical view, the condonation of dela assessee had argua condonation of dela injury to the aggrieve
3.2 The object of pr is to expedite the pro advance cause of the delay is attributable no indication of ma conduct of the asse equitable relief of co appeals stands co adjudication on merit
3.3 As regards the i rejected the applicati
Income Tax Act, 196
comply with statutor tax Business applica application was foun notices dated 30.04
terms of Rule 17A(2) finding of the Ld. CIT is reproduced as und
Shr
ITA Nos. 28

explanation furnished by th ay should not be rejected par able points of law on merits ay will cause erroneous loss a ed party by terminating lis at the escribing the time period for fili oceedings before the concerned e substantial justice. In the pr to genuine and justifiable facto alafide conduct or culpable n ssee is not such as to disqua ndonation. Accordingly, the de ondoned.
The appeals are ts.
impugned orders, it is seen tha ion for registration under Secti
61, on the ground that the as ry notices issued electronically ation (ITBA) portal. The order r nd to be incomplete, and desp
.2024 and 14.05.2024 seeking
), the assessee failed to respon
T(E) in relation to application fo der:
rijal Welfare Foundation
4
824 & 2825/MUM/2025
he assessee for rticularly where and refusal for and irreparable e inception.
ng of the appeal authorities and resent case, the ors, and there is negligence. The alify it from the elay in filing the admitted for at the Ld. CIT(E) ion 12AB of the ssessee failed to via the Income- records that the pite issuance of g compliance in nd. The relevant or section 12AB

“3. On verific the assessee complete, a accompanying notice was is ITBA/EXM/F
30.04.2024 r set of docume not filed his r
Notice NO MT dated 14.05.2
documents me
4. The Applica above notices granted in ter
Act after bei institution, th of any other la the purposes necessary com at a satisfacti statutory limi
31.05.2024, I application
12AB of the 3.4 Before us, the le the non-compliance e-proceeding process notice, compounded matters. We find m consequences of den principle that substa that one further opp
Consequently, the i rejecting the applicat
The matter is rema
Shr
ITA Nos. 28

cation of the application in Form 10AB f e, it was found that the application w and all the documents required g the application were not furnished. H ssued to the applicant vide DIN & No FVEXM43/2024-25/1064460601(1) requesting the assessee to provide the co ents mentioned in Rule 17(2). The assess reply. Further notice was also issued vide
TBA/EXM/F/EXM43/2024-25/1064874
2024 requesting to provide the complete entioned in Rule 17A(2).
ant has made no compliance to the terms s. Registration under section 12AB is rms of the provisions of section 12AB(1)(b ng satisfied about the objects of the t e genuineness of activities, and ithe com aw for the time being in force as are mate s of achieving its objects. In the abse mpliance by the Applicant, I am unable to ion on these parameters. As such, in view itation to decide on the application on or I am left with no other option but to rej seeking registration under Act.”
earned counsel for the assessee occurred due to lack of awaren by the trustee and the absence d by the trustee’s preoccupat merit in this contention. Given nial of registration, and having antial justice must prevail, we ar portunity ought to be granted t impugned orders passed by tion under Section 12AB and 80
nded back to the CIT(E) with rijal Welfare Foundation
5
824 & 2825/MUM/2025
filed by was not to be Hence, a otice No dated omplete see has e DIN &
151 (1) e set of s of the s to be b) of the trust or mpliance erial for ence of o arrive w of the r before ject the section e submitted that ness of the ITBA e of any physical tion with court n the statutory g regard to the re of the opinion to the assessee.
the Ld. CIT(E)
0G are set aside.
h a direction to provide a fresh oppo documents in suppo order in accordance hearing.
3.5 The grounds r allowed for statistical
4. In the result, purposes.
Order pronoun (RAJ KUMAR C
JUDICIAL M
Mumbai;
Dated: 05/06/2025
Rahul Sharma, Sr. P.S.

Copy of the Order forward
1. The Appellant
2. The Respondent.
3. CIT
4. DR, ITAT, Mumbai
5. Guard file.

////

Shr
ITA Nos. 28

ortunity to the assessee to furn ort of its application, and to p e with law after affording due raised in both the appeals a l purposes.
both the appeals are allowed ced in the open Court on 05/0
/-
S
CHAUHAN)
(OM PRAK
MEMBER
ACCOUNTA ded to :

BY ORDER

(Assistant Re

ITAT, Mu rijal Welfare Foundation
6
824 & 2825/MUM/2025
nish all requisite pass a reasoned opportunity of are accordingly d for statistical
06/2025. KASH KANT)
ANT MEMBER
R, gistrar) umbai