DISHA PRATISHTHAN,LATUR vs. CIT,EXEMPTION, PUNE

: 2. There is delay in filing of the present appeal. We are satisfied with the reasons mentioned in the application for condonation of delay duly supported by an affidavit that the applicant was prevented by sufficient cause for not filing the appeal within the prescribed time limit. After hearing Ld. DR, we condone the delay and proceed to adjudicate the appeal.

Facts of the case, in brief, are, that the assessee filed its application for registration in Form No.10AB under clause (iii) of section 12A(1)(ac) of Act on 09.06.2024. With a view to verify the genuineness of activities of the assessee and 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, a notice was issued by Ld. CIT, Exemption, Pune through ITBA portal on 12.07.2024 requesting the assessee to upload certain information/clarification on or before 29.07.2024. Since the assessee has not furnished any reply in response to notice dated 12.07.2024, another notice dated 04.10.2024 was issued to the assessee. Since the assessee again failed to comply with the above said notice, Ld. CIT, Exemption, Pune rejected the application for & 1703/PUN/2025 registration and also cancelled the provisional registration granted to the assessee on 24.03.2023 u/s 12AB r.w.s. 12A(1)(ac)(vi) of the IT Act.

It is this order against which the assessee is in appeal before this Tribunal.

Ld. AR appearing from side of the assessee submitted before us that Ld. CIT, Exemption, Pune has not provided proper opportunity to the assessee and, therefore, the impugned order of Ld. CIT, Exemption, Pune is not justified. It was submitted that the second and last notice was issued on 04.10.2024 asking for various information and other details and the compliance was required to be made on or before 11.10.2024. It was submitted that somehow the second and last notice could not be seen by the assessee and therefore reply could not be furnished before Ld. CIT, Exemption, Pune. Ld. AR submitted before the Bench that if one more opportunity is provided to the assessee, he is in a position to reply to the notice issued by Ld. CIT, Exemption, Pune. Accordingly, it was requested before the Bench to set-aside the impugned order passed by Ld. CIT, Exemption, Pune and further & 1703/PUN/2025 requested to provide at least one more opportunity to reply to the notice issued by Ld. CIT, Exemption, Pune.

Ld. DR appearing from the side of the Revenue relied on the order of Ld. CIT, Exemption, Pune and requested to confirm the same.

We have heard Ld. Counsels from both the sides and perused the material available on record. We find that admittedly the assessee could not file reply in response to first and second/last notice. It is the sole contention of the assessee that one more opportunity may kindly be provided to furnish reply before Ld. CIT, Exemption, Pune.

Considering the totality of the facts of the case, & also in the interest of justice and without going into merits of the case, we set- aside the order passed by Ld. CIT, Exemption, Pune and remand the matter back to him with a direction to decide the application for registration afresh as per fact and law after providing one final opportunity of hearing to the assessee. The assessee is also hereby directed to comply with the notices issued by Ld. CIT, Exemption, Pune and produce requisite documents/information/ submissions in support of the application for registration without taking any & 1703/PUN/2025 adjournment under any pretext, otherwise, Ld. CIT, Exemption, Pune shall be at liberty to pass appropriate order as per law. Thus, the grounds of appeal