Loading judgment…
Facts
The assessee filed an appeal with a delay. The Assessing Officer rejected the assessee's application for registration u/s 12A of the Act because it did not fulfill the stipulated conditions for approval in form No. 10AB. The assessee contended that the impugned order was passed in violation of natural justice.
Held
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal, noting that the assessee had provided a justifiable explanation and that substantial justice should be preferred over technicalities. The Tribunal restored the matter to the CIT(E) to decide afresh after providing an opportunity of hearing and allowing the assessee to submit documents.
Key Issues
Whether the delay in filing the appeal can be condoned, and whether the assessee was denied natural justice by the CIT(E) in the rejection of their Section 12A registration application.
Sections Cited
250, 12A
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “E” BENCH MUMBAI
Before: HON’BLE SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN& HONBLE SHRI PRABHASH SHANKAR
Date of Hearing 15.05.2025 Date of Pronouncement 27.05.2025 आदेश / ORDER
PER SANDEEP GOSAIN, JM:
The present appeal has been filed by the assessee challenging the impugned order 07.10.2024 passed u/s 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (‘the Act’), by the National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi (NFAC).
At the very outset we noticed that there is a delay in filing the present appeal by the assessee. In this regard Ld. 2 Tasi Animation Association AR has filed an application for seeking condonation of delay in filing the appeal on the basis of reasons mentioned in the application and reiterated same as the arguments in support of it.
On the other hand, Ld. DR refuted the contents contained in the application and requested for dismissal of the same.
After having heard the counsel for both the parties on this application for seeking condonation of delay and considering the entire factual position as explained before us and also keeping in view the principles laid down by Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Land Acquisition Collector Vs MST Katiji and others 1987 AIR 1353 Supreme Court, wherein it has been held that were substantial justice is pitted against technicalities of non- deliberate delay, then in that eventuality substantial justice is to be preferred. In our view the principals of advancing substantial justice is of prime importance. Hence considering the explanation put forth by the Assessee by justifiably and properly explaining the delay which occurred in filing the appeal and construing the expression "sufficient cause" liberally we are inclined to condone the delay in filing the appeal before us. Therefore, 3 Tasi Animation Association we condone the delay and admit the appeal to be heard on merits.
At the outset, we noticed that the application of the assessee for seeking registration u/s 12A of the Act was rejected on the ground that ‘it is not fulfilling the stipulated conditions’ prescribed for filing application for approval in form No. 10AB.
However, in this regard it is submitted by the Ld. AR that impugned order has been passed in violation of principles of natural justice without affording sufficient opportunities to the assessee to submit the required details and documents.
Whereas, Ld. DR relied upon the orders passed by Ld. CIT(E) and submitted that proper opportunities were granted to the assessee.
After evaluating the order passed by Ld. CIT(E), we found that there is no mention of issuing any notice or providing ‘sufficient opportunity’ of hearing to the assessee.
Be that as it may, without going into the merits of the allegations and counter allegations, the bench is of the view that the ends of justice would be met only if the issues between the parties are decided on merits after evaluating and appreciating the documents placed on record and relied upon by the assessee. Therefore, we 4 Tasi Animation Association restore the matter back to the file of CIT(E) for deciding it afresh by providing opportunity of hearing to the parties and allowing the assessee to place on record documents for substantiate his claim.
Before parting, I make it clear that my decision to restore the matter back to the file of Ld. CIT(E) shall in no way be construed as having any reflection or expression on the merits of the dispute, which shall be adjudicated by Ld. CIT(E) independently in accordance with law.
In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee stands allowed for statistical purposes.