ASSISIPURAM FATIMA ANNAI SOCIETY,TIRUCHIRAPPALLI vs. CIT EXEMPTIONS,, CHENNAI

These two appeals preferred by the appellant / assessee are against the impugned orders of dated 10.09.2024 and 22.07.2024 passed by the ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemption), Chennai in Application No.CIT (Exemption), Chennai /2024-25 /12AA /11271 vide DIN & Notice No.ITBA /EXM/F/EXM45/2024-25/1068486718(1) and Application No.CIT (Exemption), Chennai /2024-25 /12AA /11311 vide DIN & Notice No.ITBA /EXM/F /EXM45/2024-25/1066902528(1) respectively.

The registry has noted delay of 33 and 94 days in filing the respective appeals. Considering the reasons stated in the affidavits by President of the Assessee society, we condone the delay and treat the reasons as ‘sufficient cause’ and admit both the appeals for adjudication.

Brief facts are as under: The assessee / applicant filed an application on 23.03.2024 in Form No.10AB seeking registration u/s 12A(1)(ac)(iv)of the Income Tax Act, 1961 and also filed an application on 25.03.2024 in Form No.10AB seeking approval u/s 80G(5)(ii) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (‘Act’ in short). Thereafter, in respect of application dated 23.03.2024, the ld.CIT(E) vide notice dated 29.07.2024 requested the assessee to furnish the relevant documents / details and its clarifications either by uploading online in the e-filing portal, on or before 05.08.2024. However, no response from the applicant to notice dated 29.07.2024. Similarly, in respect of application dated 25.03.2024, the ld.CIT(E) vide notice dated 13.05.2024 requested the assessee to furnish the relevant documents / details and its clarifications either by uploading online in the e-filing portal, on or before 20.05.2024. However, no response from the applicant to notice dated 25.03.2024. Hence, having no choice, the ld.CIT(E) rejected the both applications referred supra as not maintainable.

Aggrieved, Assessee is in further appeals before us.

At the outset, Ld.AR for the assessee submitted that the trustee is not familiar with the online mails and digital operation etc. The Ld.AR for the assessee prayed that if an adequate opportunity of hearing is given before ld.CIT(E), assessee will file requisite details called for and prosecute the both applications properly. Ld.CIT-DR relied upon the order of ld.CIT(E) and prayed for dismissal of appeal.

We have gone through the orders of lower authorities and submissions addressed by the parties before us. We are of the considered view that in the interest of justice, assessee should be given one more opportunity before ld.CIT(E) to prosecute the both applications as referred supra filed in Form 10AB. The ld.AR for the assessee also assured the bench that the assessee will file all necessary requisites/details asked by the ld.CIT(E). Therefore, in the light of above assurance/undertaking, we set aside these appeals to the file of ld.CIT(E) to hear the both applications afresh after providing proper opportunity of hearing to the assessee, subject to cost of Rs.5,000/- for each appeal, which shall be deposited by the assessee within 30 days from the date of receipt of this order to ‘Tamil Nadu State Legal Services Authority’ at Hon’ble High Court of Madras. The proof of the same will be furnished by the Assessee before Ld.CIT(E), who shall proceed for fresh application hearing, after affording proper opportunity of hearing to the assessee. The assessee is directed to substantiate its case forthwith without any fail, failing which Ld. CIT(E) shall be at liberty to proceed with the disposal of the applications as per law. The ld. counsel, who appeared through virtual mode also assured the bench that he will ensure that the assessee will prosecute its case diligently.

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes.