Loading judgment…
Facts
The assessee filed an appeal challenging an order passed u/s 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, for AY 2025-26. There was a delay in filing the appeal, for which the assessee sought condonation.
Held
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal, considering the principles of substantial justice. The matter of rejection of approval u/s 80G due to absence of registration u/s 12A was restored to the CIT(E) for fresh consideration.
Key Issues
Whether the delay in filing the appeal should be condoned and whether the matter of registration u/s 12A should be restored to the CIT(E) for fresh consideration.
Sections Cited
250, 80 G, 12A
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “C” BENCH MUMBAI
Before: HON’BLE SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN & HON’BLE SHRI OMKARESHWAR CHIDARA
Date of Hearing 21.04.2025 Date of Pronouncement 24.04.2025 आदेश / ORDER
PER SANDEEP GOSAIN, JM:
The present appeal has been filed by the assessee challenging the impugned order 23.12.2024 passed u/s 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (‘the Act’), by the National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi / CIT(E), for the A.Y 2025- 26. 2 Shree Cambay Swtamber Visha Shrimatili Jain Samag Sahayak Trust, Mumbai 2. At the very outset we noticed that there is a delay in filing the present appeal by the assessee . In this regard Ld. 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 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 3 Shree Cambay Swtamber Visha Shrimatili Jain Samag Sahayak Trust, Mumbai condone the delay in filing the appeal before us. Therefore we condone the delay and admit the appeal to be heard on merits.
At the very outset, we noticed that the approval sought by the assessee u/s 80 G of the Act was rejected in the absence of registration u/s 12A of the act.
However with regard to rejection of registration u/s 12A of the Act the Coordinate Bench of ITAT in has restored the matter back to the file of Ld. CIT(E) for considering afresh the application of the assessee for registration u/s 12A of the Act vide its order dated 28.03.2025. Therefore, considering the above factual position, we also restore the present matter to the file of Ld. CIT(E) to consider the same afresh after taking into consideration the final orders passed on the application of the assessee regarding registration u/s 12A of the Act.
Before parting, we make it clear that our decision to restore the matter back to the file of the 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 the Ld. CIT(E) independently in accordance with law.
4 Shree Cambay Swtamber Visha Shrimatili Jain Samag Sahayak Trust, Mumbai 8. In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes.