Loading judgment…
Facts
The assessee's application for registration under section 12A(1)(ac) was rejected by the CIT(E) for non-compliance with notices. The assessee filed an appeal against this order with a delay of 124 days.
Held
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal after considering the reasons provided by the assessee and the settled legal principles regarding condonation of delay. The matter was restored to the CIT(E) for fresh adjudication.
Key Issues
Whether the delay in filing the appeal can be condoned and if the matter should be remanded for fresh adjudication by the lower authority.
Sections Cited
12A, 12A(1)(ac), 12AB(1)(b)(i)
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Detected automatically from the text. The count shows how many other judgments on BharatTax rely on the same authority.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “A” BENCH, PUNE
Before: SHRI R.K. PANDA & MS. ASTHA CHANDRA
आदेश / ORDER
PER ASTHA CHANDRA, JM :
The appeal filed by the assessee is directed against the order dated 26.09.2024 of the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemption), Pune [“CIT(E)”] whereby he rejected the application of the assessee filed before him on 18.04.2024 in Form No. 10AB under clause (iii) of section 12A(1)(ac) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (the “Act”).
There is a delay of 124 days in filing of this appeal before the Tribunal for which the assessee has filed an application for condonation of delay along with affidavit explaining the reasons for such delay. He submitted that the delay is not intentional and is a bonafide one for the reasons beyond the control of the assessee as evident from the reason stated in affidavit filed in support thereof and therefore prayed that the delay may be condoned and the appeal be admitted for adjudication.
2.1 The Ld. DR, on the other hand, opposed the arguments advanced by the Ld. Counsel for the assessee.
2.2 We have heard the rival contentions and perused the record. It is an admitted fact that there is a delay of 124 days in filing of the appeal before the Tribunal. The Ld. Counsel for the assessee has filed an affidavit of the assessee stating the reason for such delay which are as under :
“1, Mr. Dhumal Sachin Uttamrao, Director of Earth Charitable Foundation Age 47 years, Occupation- Business, residing at Near S No.178/2, Genubhau Kalate Nagar, Wakad, Pune-411057, on solemn affirmation state and declare as under-
1. 1. That I am a Director of Earth Charitable Foundation since 2020. The Company was registered under the Companies Act, 2013 as a Section 8 company. The Company was formed to carry out objects of protection of environment, prevention of cruelty to animals, Promotion of animal welfare, veterinary care of animals, Maintenance of animal shelters & maintaining animal hospitals, dispensaries, etc.
2. That the Company was provisionally registered with Income Tax Act on 27.05.2021 and applied for Final Registration in Form 10AB on 30.01.2023. This application was inadvertently made under wrong code and the same was rejected vide Order dt.03.07.2023.
3. That the Company made a fresh application for regular registration on 18.04.2024 in Form 10AB. The same was rejected vide an Order dt 26.09.2024 on the ground that the required details were not furnished and also cancelled provisional registration. Notice of hearing dt 6th June, 2024 & 2nd Aug. 2024 were sent to email cayeolekarpune@rediffmail.com was inactive and therefore could not reach us.
4. That the Company made another application for regular registration on 16.10.2024. That the CIT Exemption Pune vide an order u/s. 12A(1)(ac) dated 18.03.2025 rejected the application on the ground that the application was rejected vide order dt 26.09.2024 and also cancelled provisional registration.
5. The Company thereafter has been advised to file appeal against the earlier order of rejection dt 26.09.2024.
6. I state that the limitation for filing of the present appeal expired on 19.11.2024 and the appeal is filed 23.03.2025. There is a delay of 124 days in filing of the present appeal.
7. I humbly state that the delay in filing of the present appeal is bonafide while pursuing the registration by filing another application and for the reasons beyond the control of the appellant. A prayer is made to Hon Income Tax appellate Tribunal Pune Bench in the interest of justice to condone the delay and decide the appeal on merits.
8. Whatever stated above is true and correct to the best of my knowledge, belief and information and therefore I have signed this Affidavit on this 21 day of May 2025 at Pune.”
2.3 In light of the above reason stated by the assessee in his affidavit, we find some merit in the submission of the Ld. Counsel for the assessee that there was a reasonable cause in not filing the appeal before the Tribunal within the stipulated time.
2.4 We find the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Collector, Land Acquisition vs. Mst. Katiji & Ors. (1987) 167 ITR 471 (SC) has held that when substantial justice and technical considerations are pitted against each other, cause of substantial justice deserves to be preferred for the other side cannot claim to have vested right in injustice being done because of a non-deliberate delay. Refusing to condone delay can result in a meritorious matter being thrown out at the very threshold and cause of justice being defeated. As against this when delay is condoned the highest that can happen is that a cause would be decided on merits after hearing the parties.
2.5 We find recently the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Inder Singh Vs. The State of Madhya Pradesh reported in 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 339 has held as under: “14. There can be no quarrel on the settled principle of law that delay cannot be condoned without sufficient cause, but a major aspect which has to be kept in mind is that, if in a particular case, the merits have to be examined, it should not be scuttled merely on the basis of limitation.”
2.6 Considering the totality of facts and in the circumstances of the case set out above and respectfully following the above decision(s) of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, we hereby condone the delay in filing of the appeal and admit the same for adjudication.
The assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal :
1. The Id CIT Exemption erred in law and on facts in rejection of application for Registration u/s 12A(1)(ac) (ii) and cancelling provisional registration granted on 27.05.2021 without considering the facts and circumstances of the case.
2. The appellant prays for opportunity so as to explain its case.
3. The appellant craves leave to add, alter, modify or substitute any ground of appeal at the time of hearing.
4. Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that on receipt of the assessee’s application filed in Form No. 10AB u/s 12A(1)(ac)(iii) of the Act along with annexures thereto, with a view to verify the genuineness of the activities of the assessee and compliance to requirements of any other law for the time being in force, the Ld. CIT(E) issued notice on 06.06.2024 through ITBA portal/email which was duly served on the assessee requesting the assessee to upload certain information/clarification contained therein by 21.06.2024. Since the assessee failed to comply to the said notice, the assessee was served with another show cause notice dated 02.08.2024 seeking compliance by 12.08.2024. Since there was no response from the side of the assessee despite sufficient opportunities granted, the Ld. CIT(E) rejected the application and also cancelled the provisional registration granted earlier by observing as under: “5. The information / details were called for under the provisions of section 12AB(1)(b)(i) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. These are the basic details required to ascertain the overall nature of the activities of the assessee and are directly relevant to the present proceedings. However, the assessee has failed to comply despite giving sufficient opportunities as discussed above including an opportunity of being heard.
6. Thus, the assessee has failed to furnish the details called for under the provisions of section 12AB(1)(b)(i) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 to verify the genuineness of activities of the trust / institution and to verify the compliance to requirements of any other law for the time being in force by the trust/institution as are material for the purpose of achieving its objects.
In absence of the compliance to the above requirement, it is not possible to arrive at any conclusion about the genuineness of activities of the assessee and the compliance to the requirements of any other law for the time being in force by the trust / institution as are material for the purpose of achieving its objects.
8. It is clear from the above that the assessee was given sufficient opportunity to comply, but it has not complied to the same. It seems that the assessee is not having any supporting documents / evidence to submit. The assessee has failed to comply with the provisions of section 12AB(1)(b)(i) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. Hence, the undersigned is unable to draw any satisfactory conclusion about genuineness of activities of the assessee and the compliance to the requirements of any other law for the time being in force by the trust / institution as are material for the purpose of achieving its objects. Therefore, the undersigned has left no alternative but to reject the application.
9. In view of the above, the application filed by the assessee is hereby rejected and the provisional registration granted on 27/05/2021 under section 12AB read with section 12A(1)(ac) (vi) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 is hereby cancelled.”
Aggrieved, the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal and all the grounds of appeal relate thereto.
The Ld. AR, at the outset, submitted that the Ld. CIT(E) has rejected the assessee’s application for registration under section 12A of the Act on account of non-compliance of the notice(s) issued by him. Referring to the contents of the affidavit of the assessee (reproduced in para 2.2 above in this order), the Ld. AR submitted that there were multiple applications filed by the assessee for registration which led to the confusion in the mind of the assessee and therefore it took time to resolve the issue and file the appeal against the correct application rejected by the Ld. CIT(E). The non-compliance before the Ld. CIT(E) was not intentional and therefore she prayed that in the interest of justice, the assessee may be provided with an opportunity to present and substantiate its case before the Ld. CIT(E) by filing all the requisite details/ documents to his satisfaction and requested that the matter may be restored back to his file for fresh adjudication on merits.
7. The Ld. DR had no objection the above request of the Ld. AR.
We have heard the Ld. Representatives of the parties and perused the records. It is an admitted fact that due to non-compliance to the notices issued by the Ld. CIT(E) and unavailability of the supporting evidence/ documents, the Ld. CIT(E) rejected the assessee’s application for grant of registration u/s 12A of the Act and also cancelled the provisional registration granted earlier. It is the submission of the Ld. Counsel for the assessee that given an opportunity, the assessee is in a position to substantiate its case by filing all the relevant supporting details/documents/ evidence before the Ld. CIT(E) to his satisfaction. Considering the totality of the facts and in the circumstances of the assessee’s case, we are of the view that it would be judicially expedient and in the interest of justice and fair play, if the matter is restored back to the file of Ld. CIT(E) to consider the assessee’s application for registration afresh and decide the same on merits, in accordance with fact and law after allowing a one more opportunity of hearing to the assessee to present and substantiate its case. Needless to say, the assessee shall provide the requisite support to the Ld. CIT(E) in terms of submitting the relevant details/documentary evidence as may be required/called upon on the appointed date without seeking adjournment under any pretext unless for required for sufficient cause, failing which the Ld. CIT(E) shall be at liberty to pass appropriate order as per law. We order accordingly. The grounds raised by the assessee are therefore allowed for statistical purposes.
In the result, the appeal of assessee is treated as allowed for statistical purposes.
Order pronounced in the open court on 17th December, 2025.