MARINE DRISHTI AND COASTAL FOUNDATION ,GOA vs. CIT (EXEMPTION), BANGALORE, BENGALURU

6.1 While considering a similar issue the Apex Court in the case of Collector, Land Acquisition v. Mst. Katiji and Ors. (167 ITR 471) laid down six principles. For the purpose of convenience, the principles laid down by the Apex Court are reproduced hereunder:

(1) Ordinarily, a litigant does not stand to benefit by lodging an appeal late. (2) Refusing to condone delay can result in a meritorious matter being thrown at the very threshold and cause of justice being defeated. As against this, when delay is condoned, the highest that can happen is that a cause would be decided on merits after hearing the parties. (3) 'Every day's delay must be explained' does not mean that a pedantic approach should be made. Why not every hour's delay, every second's delay? The doctrine must be applied in a rational, commonsense and pragmatic manner.

(4) When substantial justice and technical consideration are pitted against each other, the cause of substantial justice deserves to be preferred, for the other side cannot claim to have vested right in injustice being done because of a nondeliberate delay. (5) There is no presumption that delay is occasioned deliberately, or on account of culpable negligence, or on account of mala fides. A litigant does not stand to benefit by resorting to delay. In fact, he runs a serious risk. (6) It must be grasped that the judiciary is respected not on account of its power to legalise injustice on technical grounds but because it is capable of removing injustice and is expected to do so. 6.2 When substantial justice and technical consideration are pitted against each other, the cause of substantial justice deserves , 455 & 456/Bang/2025 Marine Drishti Coastal Foundation, Goa Page 6 of 15 to be preferred, for the other side cannot claim to have vested right for injustice being done because of nondeliberate delay. Therefore, we have to prefer substantial justice rather than technicality in deciding the issue. As observed by Apex Court, if the application of the assessee for condoning the delay is rejected, it would amount to legalize injustice on technical ground when the Tribunal is capable of removing injustice and to do justice. Therefore, this Tribunal is bound to remove the injustice by condoning the delay on technicalities. If the delay is not condoned, it would amount to legalizing an illegal order which would result in unjust enrichment on the part of the State by retaining the tax relatable thereto. Under the scheme of Constitution, the Government cannot retain even a single pie of the individual citizen as tax, when it is not authorized by an authority of law. Therefore, if we refuse to condone the delay, that would amount to legalize an illegal and unconstitutional order passed by the lower authority.

6.3 Further, in the case of People Education & Economic Development Society Vs/ ITO reported in 100 ITD 87 (TM) (Chen), wherein held that “when substantial justice and technical consultation are pitted against each other, the cause of substantial justice deserves to be preferred for the other side cannot claim to have vested right in injustice being done because of non-deliberate delay”.

6.4 The next question may arise whether delay was excessive or inordinate. There is no question of any excessive or inordinate when the reason stated by the assessee was a reasonable cause for not filing the appeal. We must see the cause for the delay. When there was a reasonable cause, the period of delay may not be relevant factor. In fact, the Madras High Court in the case of CIT vs. K.S.P. Shanmugavel Nadai and Ors. (153 ITR 596) considered the , 455 & 456/Bang/2025 Marine Drishti Coastal Foundation, Goa Page 7 of 15 condonation of delay and held that there was sufficient and reasonable cause on the part of the assessee for not filing the appeal within the period of limitation. Accordingly, the Madras High Court condoned nearly 21 years of delay in filing the appeal. When compared to 21 years, 248 days cannot be considered to be inordinate or excessive. Furthermore, the Chennai Tribunal by majority opinion in the case of People Education and Economic Development Society (PEEDS) v. ITO (100 ITD 87) (Chennai) (TM) condoned more than six hundred days delay. Therefore, in our opinion, by preferring the substantial justice, the delay of 248 days have to be condoned and accordingly we condone the delay and admit the appeal for adjudication.

11.1 On going through the order of the ld. CIT(E), we find that the ld. CIT(E) on perusal of the submissions and as reported by the JAO, is of the opinion that the assessee has not commenced its activities. However, we observe that the assessee trust had also submitted the provisional financials along with the bank statement evidencing the commencement of activities towards the objects, however on perusal of the financials, the ld. CIT(E) is of the view that the assessee has not made any expenditure towards the objects of the assessee. Before us, the ld. AR of the assessee however submitted that it is not a case that no activities had been commenced but in fact very little amount spent towards the objects as the trust is at the inception stage.

11.2 On going through the Activity report, financials filed before us as well as submissions as made before the ld. CIT(E), we observe that for the financial year 2022-23, the assessee had conducted a significant activity involving nearly 450 marine lifesavers and around 50 forest department officials. These individuals underwent intensive training to handle a variety of marine stranding, including those involving dolphins, turtles, snakes, and wild bird species on Goa’s beaches. The training also included the development of their first reaction skills when faced with stranded species. Further during the F.Y 2024-24, the assessee was not into any major activity because the assessee trust was awaiting the membership of International Life Saving Federation which was ultimately approved by the letter dated 04/03/2024 (Placed at page 37.a of Appeal Set). Before us, the assessee trust also produced copy of the invoice dated 06/04/2024 from Special Rescue Training Academy Pvt. Ltd. towards providing training to 3 peoples & invoices for consultancy contract, invoices of rollup standee normal & designing along with the copy of invoice towards purchase of Rice, Sugar, Coffee etc.

, 455 & 456/Bang/2025 Marine Drishti Coastal Foundation, Goa Page 10 of 15 (Placed at pages 42-52 of Appeal Set.) Further, the assessee trust had also produced certain photographs (Placed at pages 53-70 of Appeal Set.) evidencing commencement of the activities by the assessee.

11.3 Therefore, we find force in the argument of ld. Counsel of the assessee that it is not a case that no activities had been commenced but in fact a little amount spent towards the objects as the trust is at the inception stage. We are of the firm opinion that for the purpose of granting registration, the ld. CIT(E) shall call for such documents or information or make such inquiry as he thinks necessary in order to satisfy himself about the twin object:- (a) the genuineness of the activity of the trust and (b) the compliance of such requirements of any other law for the time being in force by the trust or institution as are material for the purpose of achieving its object.

11.4 In the present case, there is not even a whisper about any non-genuineness of the activities carried on by the assessee trust. The only allegation by the ld. CIT(E) is that the assessee had not commenced its activities towards the object of the Trust which in our opinion is not true by taking into consideration the Activity report, photographs & financials along with provisional produced before us. We are also of the considered opinion that it is not the quantum of expenditure which is relevant for the purpose of granting registration but in fact the genuineness of the activity of the trust in accordance with the object of the trust is relevant for granting registration. In the present case, it is a fact that the assessee had already commenced its activity towards the attainment of the object as the assessee trust had conducted the training programme which comes under the framework of the Annual Lifesaver Revalidation Programme in the presence of Deputy , 455 & 456/Bang/2025 Marine Drishti Coastal Foundation, Goa Page 11 of 15 conservator of Forests. Since it was the inception stage of its operation, the assessee was not able to spend towards the large scale activity. Therefore, considering the totality of the fact of the case, as the assessee had already commenced its activities which is also not held to be non-genuine by the ld. CIT(E), we are inclined to allow the appeal filed by the assessee & direct the ld. CIT(E) to grant registration u/s 12AB of the Act. It is ordered accordingly.

14.1 Again being aggrieved by the Order of the ld. CIT(E) dated 06/01/2025, the assessee has filed the present appeal before this Tribunal in within time.

18.1 Since we have allowed the appeal in directing the ld. CIT(E) to grant of registration u/s 12AB of the Act to the assessee & taking into consideration the fact that the assessee had not submitted the necessary documents during the registration proceedings u/s 80G of the Act, we deem it fit and proper to remit this issue of approval u/s 80G of the Act to the file of ld. CIT(E) to decide afresh in accordance with law after taking into consideration the registration granted to the assessee u/s 12AB of the Act. Needless to say, a reasonable opportunity of being heard must be granted to the assessee. The assessee is also directed to produce/submits the documents/record/Certificates /reports/financials etc. as may be required by the ld. CIT(E) for granting approval u/s 80G of the Act. It is ordered accordingly.

Order pronounced in the open court on 31st July, 2025