CHIRANABIN,HOWRAH vs. C.I.T.(EXEMPTION),, KOLKATA

Chiranabin, At Parbakshi Post Bakshi, Howrah, West Bengal - 711303 [PAN: AAAAC3200F] ……..…...…………….... Appellant vs. The Commissioner of Income Tax, (Exemptions), Kolkata 10B, Middleton Row (6th Floor), Kolkata - 700071 ................................. Respondent Appearances by: Assessee represented by : P.K. Ray, Advocate R.C. Halder, Advocate Trideep Nayak, AR Department represented by : Raja Sengupta, CIT-DR Date of concluding the hearing : 08.07.2025 Date of pronouncing the order : 09.07.2025 O R D E R

PER SANJAY AWASTHI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER

“1. That an appeal has been preferred by the appellant before Hon'ble Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Kolkata against the order of the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemptions) / Kolkata, rejection the approval of exemption under clause (iii) of second proviso to sub-section (5) of Section 80G of the Income Tax Act, 1961.

2. The said order of the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemptions) / Kolkata, was passed and received by mail on 27.12.2024. Therefore, the appeal should have been instituted within 60 days from the receipt of such order, i.e., on or before 26.02.2025.

3. The appeal is being filed on or after 26.02.2025, with a prayer for condonation of a delay of more or less 67 days 4. The reasons for such delay are submitted as under: a) That the Appellant is the Institution is a purely charitable and voluntary organization, pecuniary help to poor pupils and public, the income of this Society is not sufficient for running and maintaining the activity of the Organization. So, the Donation which requires to be received from the member and well-wisher of the Institution is very essential for running and maintaining the activity. The Society is engaged in different Social Development Programme with the support of different funding agencies for giving whole hearted free services to the rural community irrespective of caste and creed. b) That the Appellant is a charitable trust, and its governing body members, who are volunteers did not assemble as frequently as required for the institution's administrative activities Due to this, the decision to file an appeal before this Hon'ble Tribunal in connection with rejection the approval of exemption under clause (iii) of second proviso to sub-section (5) of Section 80G of the Income Tax Act, 1961, could not be take in a timely manner. c) That the Appellant could not engage an Advocate/ legal Practitioner in time to file the appeal before this Hon'ble Tribunal, Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Kolkata. d) That the Appellant faced internal challenges among the Executive Committee members responsible for the institution's administration. These challenges hindered the Executive Committee from functioning effectively and making timely decisions, including the decision to file the appeal before the Hon'ble Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Kolkata, in connection with the approval of exemption under clause (ii) of second proviso to sub-section (5) of Section 80G of the Income Tax Act, 1961. Specifically. There was a lack of consensus on the way forward in responding to rejection the approval of exemption under clause (iii) of second proviso to sub-section (5) of Section 80G of the Income Tax Act, 1961. Key members of the committee were unavailable due to personal reasons and health issues as well as they offered their services in voluntary basic The Society also faced difficulties in organizing meetings of the executive committee. e) That the Appellant could not find a representative in their locality and finally assigned the present authorized representative, Advocate Sri Paban Kumar Ray, on 30 04.2025, to file the appeal and take the necessary steps before the Hon'ble Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Kolkata, to seek justice concerning the rejection the approval of exemption under clause (iii) of second proviso to sub-section (5) of Section 80G of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The delay was not due to any mala fide intention, but solely due to the reasons stated above The Appellant was genuinely prevented from filing the appeal within the prescribed time. Therefore, it is requested that, as the delay is unintentional, the delay of more or less 67 days in filing the appeal may be condoned, and the appeal may be admitted for adjudication on its merits, in the interest of substantial justice. Prayer: In view of the above submissions, it is respectfully requested that this Hon'ble Tribunal to accept that the delay in filing the appeal was unintentional and not due to any negligence. It is therefore prayed that the delay of more or less 67 days be condoned, and the appeal be considered on its merits, in the interest of substantial justice.”