Loading judgment…
Facts
The assessee's appeals were filed late by 207 days. The assessee claimed the delay was due to the Managing Trustee being unwell and missing the notices, which were sent via email and ended up in the spam folder.
Held
The Tribunal condoned the delay, noting sufficient cause for the belated filing. However, it deprecated the assessee's attitude and restored the issues to the CIT(E) for fresh adjudication, granting one more opportunity.
Key Issues
Whether the delay in filing the appeals was sufficiently justified and whether the assessee should be granted another opportunity to present its case before the CIT(E) after ex-parte orders were passed.
Sections Cited
12AB, 80G, 147, 148, 143(3)
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, ‘C’ BENCH, CHENNAI
Before: SHRI GEORGE GEORGE K & SHRI JAGADISH
O R D E R
PER GEORGE GEORGE K, VICE PRESIDENT:
These two appeals at the instance of the assessee are directed against two separate orders of CIT(E) both dated 21.08.2024, rejecting Form No.10AB filed for seeking registration u/s.12AB and approval u/s.80G of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter the ‘Act’).
There is a delay of 207 days in filing these appeals. The assessee has filed petition for condonation of delay stating therein the reasons for belated filing of these appeals. The reasons stated & 3305/CHNY/2024 in the condonation application for belated filing of these appeals is that Managing Trustee of the assessee trust was not well and confined to bed at the time of receiving impugned order and a medical certificate to that effect is filed on record. Thus, the Managing Trustee was not aware of the impugned order passed by CIT(E), hence there was delay in filing these appeals.
On perusal of the aforesaid reasons in the condonation application, we are of the view that there is sufficient cause for belated filing of these appeals and no latches can be attributed to the assessee. Hence, we condone the delay in filing these appeals and proceed to dispose off the appeals on merits.
At the very outset, we notice that the CIT(E) has passed ex-parte orders. The reason for deciding the appeals ex-parte was that the assessee did not reply to the notices / show cause notices issued from the office of the CIT(E). The ld.AR submitted that in the interest of justice and equity, one more opportunity may be provided to assessee trust to represent its cases before the CIT(E).
The ld.DR supported the orders of CIT(E).
We have heard rival submissions and perused the material on record. The Office of the CIT(E) had issued notices / show cause notices by e-mail directing the assessee to file certain details/documents. Since there was no response by the assessee & 3305/CHNY/2024 to the notices issued, the CIT(E) passed ex-parte orders. It is the claim of the assessee that the notices issued through e-mail have been missed inadvertently since it was received in spam folder. We strongly deprecate the nonchalant attitude of the assessee in not responding to various notices issued from the Office of the CIT(E). However, in the interest of justice and equity, we are of the view that assessee ought to be provided with one more opportunity to represent its cases and accordingly, the issues are restored to the files of the CIT(E). The assessee is directed to co-operate with the Revenue and shall not seek unnecessary adjournment. It is ordered accordingly.
In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced in the open court on 12th March, 2025.