Loading judgment…
Facts
The appeals were filed against the orders of the CIT(Exemption) denying regular registration. The appeals were filed with significant delays, and the appellant had also filed a fresh application for registration after the initial rejection, which was also rejected.
Held
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeals, citing reasonable cause. The Tribunal directed the CIT(Exemption) to re-adjudicate the appellant's application for registration after giving an opportunity to present details. ITA No. 2122/PUN/2025 was allowed for statistical purposes.
Key Issues
Whether the delay in filing the appeal should be condoned and whether the CIT(Exemption) should re-adjudicate the application for registration.
Sections Cited
12A, 12A(1)(ac)(iii)
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, PUNE BENCHES “B”, PUNE
Before: DR.MANISH BORAD & SHRI VINAY BHAMORE
PER DR. MANISH BOARD, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER :
The captioned appeals at the instance of appellant are directed against the orders dated 24.12.2024 and 31.01.2024 respectively framed by CIT(Exemption), Pune denying grant of regular registration to the appellant.
Registry has informed that the instant appeals are barred by limitation as the appellant filed with a delay of 158 days and with a delay of 529 days. Appellant filed application(s) for condonation of delay explaining the reasons. Delay in filing the appeals is mainly stated to be for the reason that after the rejection of the appellant’s application dated 31.01.2024 due to non-compliance by the appellant rather than filing appeal before this Tribunal has again filed fresh application for regular registration u/s.12A(1)(ac)(iii) on 28.06.2024.
However, as second application dated 28.06.2024 has also been rejected by ld.CIT(E) on account of various reasons including being not satisfied with the genuineness of the activities of the appellant, non compliance by the appellant and inadequate legal advice.
After hearing both the sides and perusing the averments made in the applications, we are satisfied that due to ‘reasonable cause’ prevented the appellant in filing the instant appeals within the stipulated time. We find the delay in filing the appeals is not intentional and appellant would not have gained by delaying the filing of appeal. We therefore taking justice oriented approach and following the judgments of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Collector, Land Acquisition, Anantnag & Anr. Vs. Mst. Katiji & Ors. reported in (1987) 2 SCC 107 and in the case of Inder Singh Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh judgment dated 21.03.2025 (2025 INSC 382). condone the delay of 158 days and 529 days in filing the appeals before this Tribunal and admit the appeals for adjudication.
At the outset, ld. Counsel for the appellant submitted that the first application for regular registration which was filed by the appellant on 26.09.2023 has been rejected by ld.CIT(E) on account of non-compliance and the second application has been again filed on 28.06.2024. She prayed that appeal filed against the rejection of first application dated 26.09.2023 by ld.CIT(E) vide order dated 31.01.2024 may be restored to the file of ld.CIT(E) for afresh adjudication. Ld. Counsel for the appellant further submitted that may be dismissed as infructuous. Ld. Departmental Representative did not object to the above request made by ld. Counsel for the appellant.
We have heard the rival contentions and perused the record placed before us. We observe that appellant has made application for grant of regular registration u/s.12A of the Act on 26.09.2023 which has been rejected by ld.CIT(E) vide order dated 31.01.2024. Appellant rather than immediately filing an appeal against the order of ld.CIT(E) dated 31.01.2024 filed fresh application for registration u/s.12A of the Act before ld.CIT(E) on 28.06.2024. Though the appellant furnished details before ld.CIT(E) but still ld.CIT(E) has summarily rejected the appellant’s application because the previous application dated 26.09.2023 already stands rejected.
Under these given facts and circumstances where the appellant has stated to possessing all the relevant details in support of its application for registration u/s.12A of the Act, we in the interest of justice and being fair to both the parties deem it proper to direct ld.CIT(E) to re-adjudicate the appellant’s application for registration u/s.12A of the Act dated 26.09.2023. The ld.CIT(E) in the set-aside proceedings shall give fair opportunity to the appellant to file the requisite details in support of its application for registration u/s.12A and then decide the case on merits. Appellant is also directed to remain vigilant and make satisfactory compliance to the notice(s) of hearing issued by ld.CIT(E). It should refrain from taking adjournments unless otherwise required for reasonable cause. Effective grounds of appeal raised by the appellant in is allowed for statistical purposes. is concerned, we find that very same issue has been challenged in this appeal against the application for grant of regular registration u/s.12A filed at a later date on 28.06.2024, the same being duplicate application is dismissed as infructuous as the appellant’s appeal for grant of regular registration u/s.12A of the Act has already been allowed for statistical purposes. is allowed for statistical purposes and is dismissed as infructuous.
Order pronounced on this 12th day of December, 2025.