FATIMA CONVENT ASSOCIATION,WARANGAL vs. CIT (EXEMPTIONS), HYDERABAD.

At the outset, it is noted that there is delay of 396 days in filing the appeal before the Tribunal. Along with the appeal, the assessee filed a petition for condonation of delay supported by an affidavit. In the petition, it has been explained that the notices as well as the impugned order of the Ld. CIT(E) were sent to the email ID fathimaconventedu@gmail.com, which is not in active use by the assessee. It was submitted that in Form No. 10AB, the assessee had provided another email ID, namely rosyfrancina9@gmail.com. However, no notice was issued to that address. Consequently, the assessee remained unaware of the fact that the application under section 12AB of the Act was rejected. The assessee came to know about the rejection order only in May 2025, when recovery proceedings were initiated by the Revenue. Immediately thereafter, the assessee took steps to file the appeal, which was filed on 27.05.2025. It was submitted that the delay was neither intentional nor deliberate but solely caused due to the order being communicated to an unused email ID.

The Learned Authorised Representative (“Ld. AR”) reiterated the reasons set out in the condonation petition and submitted that there was sufficient cause for the delay. He placed reliance on the decision of this Tribunal in the case of Sisters of Our Lady of Fatima, dated 30.07.2025, wherein, under similar circumstances, this Tribunal had condoned a delay of 364 days caused due to service of notice/order on a non- functional email ID. Accordingly, the Ld. AR prayed that in the interest of justice, the delay of 396 days in filing the present appeal may be condoned and the appeal may be admitted for adjudication on merits.

Per contra, the Learned Departmental Representative (“Ld. DR”) strongly opposed the condonation and submitted that the notices and order were sent to the email ID available on the Income Tax Portal, which was the official database of the Department. He argued that the delay of 396 days is inordinate and deserves no leniency. In support, she relied on the decision of this Tribunal in the case of Star Organic Foods Inc. Vs. ACIT in for AY 2018– 19 dated 18.07.2025, wherein the Tribunal refused to condone the delay in filing of the appeal, even though the delay in that case was 726 days, since no sufficient cause was demonstrated. Accordingly, the Ld. DR prayed for dismissal of the condonation petition.

We have heard the rival contentions and perused the material available on record. The primary reason for the delay, as explained by the assessee, is that the notices and impugned order of the Ld. CIT(E) were sent to an email ID that was no longer in use, despite the assessee having provided a different and active email ID in Form No.10AB. The assessee came to know of the impugned order only upon initiation of recovery proceedings and thereafter acted with promptness in filing the present appeal. On perusal of the record, we find that in the case of Sisters of Our Lady of Fatima, Pargi (supra), this Tribunal condoned a delay of 364 days under similar facts where the assessee was unaware of the order due to communication on a non-functional email ID. In the present case also, the cause for delay stands on the same footing, and therefore, the ratio laid down in that decision squarely applies. The reliance placed by the Revenue on the decision in Star Organic Foods Inc. (supra) is distinguishable on facts, since in that case, the assessee was fully aware of the ongoing proceedings and yet failed to act diligently, and the delay was for 726 days. In contrast, the present assessee is a charitable institution, has shown sufficient cause that prevented it from filing the appeal in time.

Further, the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Vidya Shankar Jaiswal v. ITO in SLP (Civil) Nos.26310-26311/2024 dated 31.01.2025 has held that justice oriented and liberal approach should be taken while dealing with the issue of condonation of delay in filing the appeal. Therefore, following the precedence laid down by Hon’ble Supreme Court, we hold that sufficient cause has been demonstrated by the assessee and delay deserves to be condoned in the interest of substantial justice. Accordingly, the delay of 396 days in filing the appeal is condoned. The appeal is admitted for adjudication on merits.

The assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal :

The brief facts of the case are that, the assessee is a charitable institution registered under the Societies Registration Act and is engaged in carrying out charitable activities, primarily in the field of education and empowerment of economically and socially backward children in rural areas. The assessee was granted provisional registration under section 12AB of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (“the Act”) on 27.09.2022 for the period from Assessment Year 2023–24 to 2025–26. Subsequently, the assessee filed an application for final registration under section 12AB of the Act in Form No.10AB on 28.09.2023. The Ld. CIT(E), however, rejected the said application vide order dated 26.02.2024 passed in Form No.10AC, on the ground of non-compliance with notices issued during the proceedings. Aggrieved by the rejection order, the assessee is in appeal before this Tribunal.

The Ld. AR submitted that all notices issued by the Ld. CIT(E), including the impugned rejection order, were sent to the email ID fathimaconventedu@gmail.com, which is not presently in use by the assessee. It was further pointed out that the assessee had also provided another functional email ID at para no. 9a of Form No.10AB filed on 18.12.2023, namely rosyfrancina9@gmail.com. However, no notices or communications were ever sent to this email ID as furnished in Form No.10AB. Due to this, the assessee was not in a position to respond to the queries or furnish the necessary documents in support of its application. The Ld. AR pleaded that the rejection of registration on account of such technical communication issues has caused serious prejudice to the assessee, which is a charitable institution. He accordingly prayed that, in the interest of substantial justice and following the principles of natural justice, the matter may be remanded back to the file of the Ld. CIT(E) with a direction to provide one more opportunity to the assessee for effective adjudication on merits.

Per contra, the Ld. DR strongly relied on the impugned order of the Ld. CIT(E). She submitted that the Ld. CIT(E) had sent all the notices and the rejection order to the email ID available on the Income Tax Portal, and therefore no fault can be attributed to the Revenue. He contended that the rejection was only due to lack of compliance on the part of the assessee, and accordingly prayed for dismissal of the appeal.

We have considered the rival submissions and perused the material available on record. It is an undisputed fact that the notices and the rejection order were sent by the Ld. CIT(E) to the email ID fathimaconventedu@gmail.com, which was not in active use. At the same time, the assessee had furnished another email ID, namely rosyfrancina9@gmail.com, in para 9a of Form No.10AB filed on 28.09.2023. No communication, however, was sent to this email ID.

In our considered view, non-service of notices on the email ID furnished in Form No.10AB has deprived the assessee of an effective opportunity to represent its case and submit requisite details. The assessee is a charitable institution engaged in activities of education and social empowerment in rural areas. Considering the nature of activities, the principle of substantial justice, and the settled law that technicalities should not come in the way of adjudicating genuine claims, we are inclined to hold that one more opportunity ought to be granted to the assessee to present its case before the Ld. CIT(E). Accordingly, in the interest of natural justice, we deem it fit to remit the matter back to the file of the Ld. CIT(E) with a direction to provide adequate opportunity of being heard to the assessee and liberty to file necessary submissions, explanations, and evidences in support of its application. The Ld. CIT(E) shall thereafter examine the material and pass a speaking order afresh, in accordance with law.

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes.