Loading judgment…
Facts
The assessee, M/s. Param Educational Society, applied for registration under Section 12AB of the Income Tax Act, which was rejected by the CIT(E) due to alleged non-compliance. The assessee contended that all notices and the rejection order were sent to an incorrect email ID, causing a delay of 255 days in filing the appeal and denying them an opportunity to respond.
Held
The Tribunal found that notices and the rejection order were indeed sent to a wrong email ID, violating principles of natural justice by denying the assessee an effective opportunity of being heard. The delay in filing the appeal was condoned, and the matter was remanded to the CIT(E) for fresh adjudication after providing the assessee a reasonable opportunity.
Key Issues
Whether the rejection of the Section 12AB application was valid when notices were sent to an incorrect email ID, thereby denying the assessee an opportunity of being heard, and if the associated delay in appeal filing should be condoned.
Sections Cited
12AB, 282
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Hyderabad ‘B’ Bench, Hyderabad
Before: SHRI VIJAY PAL RAO & SHRI MADHUSUDAN SAWDIA
आदेश/ORDER PER MADHUSUDAN SAWDIA, A.M. : This appeal is filed by M/s. Param Educational Society (“the assessee”), feeling aggrieved by the order passed by the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemptions), Hyderabad (“Ld. CIT(E)”), dated 13.03.2024 for the A.Y. 2024-25.
At the outset, it is noted that there is a delay of 255 days in filing the appeal before the Tribunal. The assessee has filed a petition seeking condonation of delay, supported by an affidavit, explaining the reasons for the said delay. The learned Authorised Representative (“Ld. AR”) submitted that the notices and the impugned order passed by the Ld. CIT(E) were sent to an email ID (phcmanikonda@yahoo.in) which does not belong to the assessee. Due to this, the assessee was unaware of the fact that an adverse order had been passed rejecting its application for registration under Section 12AB of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (“the Act”). It was submitted that the assessee came to know about the said order only on 03.03.2025 and took immediate steps to file the present appeal, which was filed on 12.04.2025. The Ld. AR submitted that there was neither negligence nor intentional delay on the part of the assessee and the delay was solely caused due to the order being communicated to an incorrect email ID.
Per contra, the Learned Department Representative (“Ld. DR”) did not dispute the fact that the notices and order were sent to an incorrect email ID.
After considering the reasons stated in the condonation petition and the submissions of both parties, we are satisfied that the assessee was prevented by a reasonable cause in filing the appeal within the stipulated time. Accordingly, the delay of 255 days is condoned and the appeal is admitted for adjudication.
The assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal :
The brief facts of the case are that, the assessee is a society engaged in running an educational institution. It had applied for final registration under Section 12AB of the Act in Form No. 10AB on 29.09.2023. The Ld. CIT(E) rejected the said application vide order dated 13.03.2024 passed in Form No. 10AD, allegedly on account of non-compliance with notices issued during the proceedings.
Aggrieved by the rejection order of Ld. CIT(E), the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal. The Ld. AR submitted that all notices issued by the Ld. CIT(E), including the final rejection order, were sent to the email ID phcmanikonda@yahoo.in, which is not the official email address of the assessee. He invited our attention to page nos. 20 to 38 of the paper book, which contain copies of such notices and the impugned order, clearly showing the incorrect email ID used by the Ld. CIT(E). Further, the Ld. AR drew our attention to Part 9a of Form No. 10AB, filed on 29.09.2023 (page no.13 of the paper book), wherein the assessee had clearly provided its correct email ID as mohsin@sunlightgroup.in. He further submitted that, due to the order and notices being sent to a wrong email ID, the assessee was not in a position to respond to the queries or submit the necessary documents. The Ld. AR therefore pleaded that one more opportunity be granted to the assessee for effective adjudication of the issue on merits by remanding the matter to the file of the Ld. CIT(E).
Per contra, the Ld. DR relied on the order of the Ld. CIT(E) and submitted that the application was rejected due to lack of compliance. However, he did not dispute the fact that the notices and order were sent to an incorrect email ID.
We have considered the rival submissions and perused the material available on record. It is not disputed that the email communications, including notices and the impugned order, were sent to an incorrect email ID not belonging to the assessee. The correct email ID, as disclosed by the assessee in the application Form No. 10AB, is different from the one used by the Ld. CIT(E). Due to this, the assessee was denied effective opportunity of being heard during the registration proceedings, which is in violation of principles of natural justice. Therefore, in the interest of justice and fair play, we deem it appropriate to remand the matter to the file of the Ld. CIT(E) for fresh adjudication. The Ld. CIT(E) is directed to provide the assessee a reasonable opportunity of being heard and to allow filing of necessary documents and submissions in support of the application.
In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes.
Order pronounced in the open Court on 30th July, 2025.