Loading judgment…
Facts
The assessee, Vilvathulasih Trust, filed two appeals with a delay of 260 days against orders from the PCIT(E) Chennai concerning applications for 80G and 12A approvals. The assessee claimed not to have received the impugned orders and alleged a lack of fair hearing, while the PCIT(E) noted the non-submission of required documents.
Held
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeals, acknowledging the assessee's justification. It remitted the issues back to the PCIT(E) for readjudication, directing that the assessee be given a fair opportunity of being heard and comply with statutory notices, subject to a cost payment of Rs. 5,000 for each appeal to the Tamil Nadu State Legal Services Authority.
Key Issues
Whether the delay in filing appeals should be condoned, and whether the assessee was denied a fair opportunity of being heard by the PCIT(E) regarding its applications for approval under Sections 80G and 12A of the Income Tax Act, 1961.
Sections Cited
80G, 12A
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, ‘C’ BENCH: CHENNAI
Before: SHRI SS VISWANETHRA RAVI & SHRI AMITABH SHUKLA
आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण, ’सी’ न्यायपीठ, चेन्नई। IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ‘C’ BENCH: CHENNAI श्री यस यस विश्वनेत्र रवि, न्यावयक सदस्य एवं श्री अविताभ शुक्ला, लेखा सदस्य के समक्ष BEFORE SHRI SS VISWANETHRA RAVI, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI AMITABH SHUKLA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER आयकर अपील सं./ITA No. 776 & 777/Chny/2025 Assessment Years: 2024-25 Vilvathulasih Trust, Assistant Commissioner of No.189, Sakthi Road, Ganapathy Pudur, Income Tax (Exemptions), Gnapathy, Coimbatore, Coimbatore. Tamil Nadu- 641 006. [PAN: AADTV7974K) (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) अपीलार्थी की ओर से/ Assessee by : Shri G.Vishnu Manickam, C.A, प्रत्यर्थी की ओर से /Revenue by : Shri G.Nandha Kumar, CIT सुनवाई की तारीख/Date of Hearing : 03.06.2025 घोषणा की तारीख /Date of Pronouncement : 11.06.2025 आदेश / O R D E R PER AMITABH SHUKLA, A.M :
These two appeals are filed by the assessee against the order bearing DIN & Order No.ITBA/EXM/F/EXM45/2024-25/1064160413(1) and No.ITBA / EXM / F / EXM45/2024-25 / 1064160507(1) dated 17.04.2024 of the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax [herein after “PCIT(E), Chennai for the assessment year 2024-25. As both the appeals are centering around a common issue and hence for the purposes of convenience were heard together and are being adjudicated by this common order together. The reference to the word “Act” in this order hereinafter shall mean the Income Tax Act, 1961 as amended from time to time.
2.0 It has been noted that there is a delay of 260 days in the case, in filing of the two appeals before the tribunal. In its affidavit the assesse has pleaded that the assesse did not receive the impugned order either by post or by any electronic means and that learnt of an order passed against him only when it routinely checked the Income Tax portal. All these activities contributed to the delay which was neither willful nor wanton. The assesse submitted that there will not be case of any non- compliance now. We have considered the justification put forth by the assesse and we are satisfied with their adequacy. We are also conscious of the fact that no litigant gains by intentionally delaying its own matters. The Ld. DR did not pose any serious objections to the delay save that cost be imposed upon the assessee for wasting the precious time of the court. Accordingly, we hereby condone the delay and proceed to adjudicate these appeals.
3.0 At the outset, the Ld. Counsel for the assessee through its grounds of appeal in & 777 argued that the appellant has not been accorded a fair opportunity of being heard before taking an adverse decision in its case. The Ld. Counsel argued that the statutory Page - 2 - of 4 notices sent to it through emails were never received by it. It was submitted that the appellant was engaged in genuine charitable activities and the impugned order will cause irreparable loss to its objectives and interest. It was submitted that appellant has all the evidences in its possession and which can be produced before the Ld.CIT(E ) to arrive at a judicious decision qua its claim for grant of approval u/s 80G and 12A. The Ld.Counsel personally assured that there will be no case of any non- compliance now.
4.0 Per Contra, the Ld. DR relied upon the order of lower authorities. It was submitted that due opportunities have been given to the appellant while considering its request for grant of approval u/s 80G & 12A and that costs be imposed upon the assessee for wasting the precious time of courts.
5.0 We have heard rival submissions in the light of material available on records. We have noted from the impugned orders of Ld.PCIT(E ) has alluded that the appellant was required to file documents in support of its claims which were not provided. The appellant has submitted that it did not receive the impugned notices. Be that as it may be, in the interest of justice, we deem it appropriate to remit the issues in twin appeals back to the Ld.PCIT(E ) for readjudication of the matter after Page - 3 - of 4 providing due opportunity of being heard to the assessee. It shall be bounden upon the assessee to comply with all the statutory notices issued by the Ld.PCIT(E ) and any non-compliance shall be viewed adversely. This order is however subject to payment of cost of Rs.5,000/- (Rupees five thousand only) each in & 777 by the assessee to the Tamil Nadu State Legal Services Authority at Hon’ble High Court of Madras within 30 days of the receipt of this order. Accordingly, all the grounds of appeal raised by the assessee in & 777 are allowed for statistical purposes. 8.0 In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced on 11th , June-2025 at Chennai.