KNM CHARITIES,,THE NILGIRIS vs. CIT, EXMEPTIONS,, CHENNAI

आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण, ‘बी’न्यायपीठ, चेन्नई। IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ‘B’ BENCH: CHENNAI श्री जॉजज जॉजज के, उपाध्यक्ष एवं श्री अमिताभ शुक्ला, लेखा सदस्य के समक्ष BEFORE SHRI GEORGE GEORGE K, VICE PRESIDENT AND SHRI AMITABH SHUKLA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER आयकर अपील सं./ITA No.448/Chny/2025 Assessment Years: - KNM Charities, Commissioner of Income Tax KNM Compound, (Exemption), Ooty Road Coonoor, Chennai. The Nilgiris, Tamil Nadu-643 102. [PAN: AAATK2879B] (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) अपीलार्थी की ओर से/ Assessee by : Shri H.Yeshwanth Kumar, CA प्रत्यर्थी की ओर से /Revenue by : Ms.Gowthami Manivasagam, JCIT सुनवाई की तारीख/Date of Hearing : 23.04.2025 घोषणा की तारीख /Date of Pronouncement : 02.05.2025 आदेश / O R D E R PER AMITABH SHUKLA, A.M :

This appeal is filed by the assessee against the order bearing DIN & Order No.ITBA / EXM/F/EXM45/2022-23 / 1049853902(1) dated 17.02.2023 of the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax(Exemption), Chennai. 2.0 It has been noted that there is a delay of 655 days in the case, in filing of this appeal before the tribunal. In its affidavit the assesse has pleaded that the assesse had entrusted its affairs to its consultant who could not make timely compliance leading to the aforesaid delay. It was contended that the email and the phone number of the consultant were given on the e-filing portal who could not monitor it timely. Thus, the delay was attributed to the said consultant. 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 save that costs be imposed for delay. Accordingly, we hereby condone the delay and proceed to adjudicate this appeal. 3.0 At the outset, the Ld. AR submitted that the CIT, Exemptions has dismissed its application in Form-10AB seeking registration u/s 12AB for non-appearance. The Ld.AR submitted that it was provided only one hearing notice and thus adequate opportunity of being heard was not provided. It was urged that one last opportunity be provided and that due compliance shall be made now. The Ld.Counsel gave personal assurance of necessary compliance now. The Ld. DR stated that the system is so designed that the CIT, Exemption is required to issue a notice for compliance within a time frame and in case no compliance is made, the application gets rejected. The Ld. DR however again urged that cost be imposed upon the assessee if its request are accepted. Page - 2 - of 4 4.0 We have heard rival submissions in the light of material available on records. It is an admitted fact the assessee has not complied with statutory notices even though only one was issued. Electronic governance systems apart, adequate opportunity of being heard is natural right of every litigant and cannot be taken away. Revenue may consider modifying its electronic governance system so that such handicaps do not restrict its authorities and allow them to work more judiciously. The objective of the statute is to provide a level playing field. Summary rejection of taxpayer’s application on technical deficiency do not serve anybody’s purpose. We are also conscious of the fact that no litigant gains by intentionally delaying its own matters. Be that as it may be we are of the view that ends of justice would be met if the assessee is given another opportunity to present its case. Accordingly, we set aside the order of CIT(E ) and direct him to readjudicate the application of the assessee under 12A after giving due opportunity of being heard and issue a speaking order. However, we also find force in the arguments of the Ld. DR that the assessee also cannot escape the blame of wasting precious time of the Court. Accordingly, this order is subject to payment of cost of Rs.5,000/-(Five thousand only) 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. All the grounds Page - 3 - of 4 of appeal raised by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes. 5.0 In the result, the appeal is allowed for statistical purpuses.

Order pronounced on 2nd , May -2025 at Chennai.