SHRI GURU GAJADANDESHWARA CHARITABLE TRUST,DEVARABHUPUR, LINGASAGUR vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, EXEMPTION, EXEMPTION WARD-1, KALBURGI, KALBURGI

The assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal: Shri Guru Gajadandeshwara Charitable Trust, Raichur Page 2 of 10

At the outset, the ld. A.R. of the assessee submitted that there is a delay of 99 days in filing the appeal before this Tribunal. The ld. A.R. of the assessee also drew our attention to an affidavit in original dated 1.5.2025 for condonation of delay sworn before the notary public which are reproduced below for ease of reference and convenience: Shri Guru Gajadandeshwara Charitable Trust, Raichur Page 3 of 10 Shri Guru Gajadandeshwara Charitable Trust, Raichur Page 4 of 10 Shri Guru Gajadandeshwara Charitable Trust, Raichur Page 5 of 10

On going through the affidavit for condonation, we find that the assessee could not file the appeal within time since the assessee’s regular CA Basavaraj Sajjan, due to time barring tax Shri Guru Gajadandeshwara Charitable Trust, Raichur Page 6 of 10 audit & Return filing works had delayed in entrusting the case to a new legal consultant to file an appeal before the ITAT. Thereafter the steps were taken to engage an authorized representative who could file and represent the case before this Tribunal. The ld. A.R. also submitted that the delay is unintentional and no benefit can be attributed to the assessee in filing the appeal belatedly. He thus prayed to condone the delay and requested to consider the issues raised by the assessee on merits.

On the contrary the ld. D.R. vehemently objected for granting the condonation of delay and submitted that the assessee is very callous in approach in filing the appeal before this Tribunal.

We have perused the details filed by the assessee to justify the delay and we are satisfied that there is sufficient cause on the part of the assessee in filing the appeal belatedly before us. It is to be noted that u/s 253(5) of the Act the Tribunal may admit the appeal filed beyond the period of limitation where it has established that there exists a sufficient cause on the part of the assessee for not presenting the appeals within the prescribed time. The explanation therefore, becomes relevant to determine whether the same reflect sufficient and reasonable cause on the part of the assessee in not filing these appeals within the prescribed time. We have gone through the cause explained by the assessee in which the assessee alleged that his regular Chartered Accountant, due to tax audit and time barring I. Tax Return filings, had delayed in entrusting the case to a new legal consultant to file an appeal before the ITAT. Thereafter steps were taken to engage an authorized representative who can file and represent the appeal before this Tribunal which cause a delay of 99 days. 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) Shri Guru Gajadandeshwara Charitable Trust, Raichur Page 7 of 10 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.

2 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 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 Shri Guru Gajadandeshwara Charitable Trust, Raichur Page 8 of 10 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.

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 7. Now Brief facts of the case are that the assessee is formed by way of deed of trust dated 10.6.2020. The assessee trust has been granted registration u/s 12AB(1)(b) of the Act on 26.9.2024 from assessment year 2022-23 to 2026-27 vide Unique Registration No. AAZTS9450P24BL01. Further, the assessee trust had been granted provisional approval under clause (iv) of 1st proviso to sub- section (5) of section 80G of the Act on 14.10.2021 with effect from 14.10.2021 to assessment year 2024-25. Thereafter, the assessee Trust filed form no.10AB. dated 31.3.2024 for final approval u/s 80G(5) of the Act and accordingly, the assessee was granted opportunity of being heard vide notices dated 25.7.2024 and 14.8.2024, wherein the assessee was required to appear before CIT(Exemptions) along with documents/details however the assessee has not responded. The ld. CIT(E) is of the view that since the assessee was mandated to submit necessary documents to prove the genuineness of the activities of the Trust or institution and fulfillment of all the conditions laid down in clauses (i) to (v) of section 80G of the Act and as the assessee has not responded and failed to appear before CIT(Exemptions), the ld. CIT(E) rejected the form No.10AB dated 31.3.2024 for approval u/s 80G of the Act.

Aggrieved by the order of ld. CIT(Exemption), the assessee has filed the present appeal before this Tribunal.

At the time of hearing, both the parties fairly conceded that the assessee could not represent its case before the ld. CIT(Exemption). Further, ld. A.R. of the assessee vehemently submitted that one more opportunity may be granted before the ld CIT(E) as the assessee is already registered u/s 12AB(1)(b) of the Act on 26.9.2024. Being so, in the interest of justice and fair play and as requested by the AR of the Assessee, we deem it fit & proper to remit the entire issue in dispute to the file of ld. CIT(E) for fresh Shri Guru Gajadandeshwara Charitable Trust, Raichur Page 10 of 10 consideration and to decide the same in accordance with law. Needless to say, a reasonable opportunity of being heard must be granted to the assessee. The assessee is also directed to cooperate with the proceedings before the ld. CIT(E) and file relevant documents/ evidences/ submissions/ information/Financials/Reports etc which would be required by the ld. CIT(Exemption) for granting approval U/s 80G. We clarify that in case of further default, the assessee shall not be entitled for any leniency. It is ordered accordingly.

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced in the open court on 30th July, 2025 (Waseem Ahmed) Accountant Member (Keshav Dubey) Judicial Member

The Applicant 2. The Respondent 3. The CIT 4. The DR, ITAT, Bangalore. 5 Guard file