SHRI KRISHNA SHEWA TRUST,PUNE vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (EXEMPTION), PUNE, PUNE

On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemption), Pune has erroneously rejected the application of the assessee under the presumption that the assessee has inadvertently filed the application.

Alternatively. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law the assessee prays to remit the matter back to the office of Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemption), Pune for fresh consideration of this application u/s 12A(1)(ac)(iii) instead of Sec. 124(1)(ac)(ii) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. 4. The assessee prays to add, amend, alter, withdraw or delete the grounds of appeal raised above during the appellate proceedings in the interest of natural justice.’ ” The Assessee filed an Affidavit for condonation of delay as under : “I. Mr. Haresh M Advani, Trustee of Shri Krishna Shewa Trust, Age: 59, Residing at: PremKutir Fl.No.3 9, Sadhu Vaswani Road opp. GPO Pune Camp hereby solemnly affirms that there has been a delay in filing an appeal against the order of Ld.Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemptions), Pune. This is of 760 days of Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemptions), Pune. This delay is of 760 days from the due date. The reasons for causing this delay are as follows: -

Initially, the email of the Auditor of trust was mentioned on the income tax portal of the trust. The notices were received on the said email but were remained to be answered as the said email was not used by the auditor and she forgot its password too. He affidavit in this context is submitted herewith for your perusal.

Later, she changed the email on the portal and mentioned the email of one of one of the trustees. The order received on the trustee's email. However, when he showed it to the consultant, he was informed that the same could be from the fraudulent email of the department and can be ignored.

Due to the said reason, the trustees have not acted upon the order of Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemptions), Pune until very recently another notice for adjustment of refund of subsequent years was received from the department.

Then the Auditor of the trust have checked the portal and got to know about the rejection order. We have immediately acted upon and endeavoured to find a person who could file an appeal and guide us in this matter.

Due to the said reason, the delay has been caused. I. on behalf of all the trustees, sincerely submit that the delay caused is not deliberate, but a probable one. I most humbly request to kindly condone this delay and admit our application. I hereby solemnly affirm that whatever stated above is true and correct to the best of my knowledge and belief. Affidavit of Auditor :

That I am a proprietor of Jaishree Harchandani, Chartered Accountants, having registered address at Flat No. 317, Ramprasad Chambers, Behind Kirad Hospital, 368/1, Nana Peth, Pune 411002. 2. That my firm is a Statutory Auditor of Shri Krishna Shewa Trust, having registered address 815, 816, Behind Block No.1, Krishna Niwas, Bhawani Peth, Pune 411042, a trust registered under The Maharashtra Public Trust Act, 1950 as well as having provisional registration u/s. 12A of The Income Tax Act, 1961. 3. That my firm regularly file the Income Tax Returns, Audit Report in Form 1088& comply with other Statutory Compliance for Shri Krishna and have done so for the past many years. 4 That I have filed Form 10AB on 29th September 2022 564126370290922 to e-filing portal of the Income Tax.

That my email idjaishreeharchandani@gmail.com_was_registered email id on Income Tax Portal for Shri Krishna Shewa Trust.

That I had forgotten the password set in respect of the aforesaid email id & in spite of respective futile attempts the said could not be retrieved.

That notice of Proceeding u/s 12A(1) (ac) (ii) was sent on my email id jaishreeharchandani@gmail.com dated_26/11/2022, 12/01/2023 & 14/01/2023 which went unanswered as I did not have access to my email id.

That after trying to recover password, I changed my email id to jaishree.h@rediffmail.com.

That if there was any default in respect of the same it is myself who was responsible and not Shri Krishna Shewa Trust.” Findings and Analysis :

We have heard both the parties and perused the records. In this case, there was a delay of 741 days in filing appeal before this Tribunal. We have studied Affidavits filed by the assessee and the Chartered Accountant Jayasri Harchandani. It is observed that the CA-Jayasri Harchandani has given the reason that her Email-Id was provided as secondary Email-Id on Income Tax Portal for Shri Krishna Seva Trust. She claimed that she had forgotten the password of the Email-Id and hence, notices sent by ld.CIT(Exemption) could not be answered. It is further mentioned in the Affidavit that the Auditor then provided Email-Id of one of the Trustees. The order of ld.CIT(E) was received on one of the Trustee's Email-Id. However, it has been claimed in the Affidavit that the Consultant thought that it could be a fraudulent Email. Therefore, Trustees had not acted upon ld.CIT(E)'s Order until Adjustment of Refund was intimated.

The reasons given in the Affidavit are unbelievable. Even if the password of the given Email-Id is forgotten, it is not difficult to generate a new password. Therefore, forgetting password is a vague reason. It is further mentioned in the Affidavit that Consultant thought that the Rejection Order received on the Email may be fraudulent. This reason is also baseless as there are ways to verify Sender's Email-Id. Trustee's Address mentioned in Affidavit is located at Sadhu Vaswani Road, Camp, Pune. The Main Pune Income Tax Office called Aaykar Bhavan is also located at Sadhu Vaswani Road, Camp, Pune at a distance of less than one kilometer from Trustee. Thus, Trustee could have visited Aaykar Bhavan to verify genuineness of the order. It does not take 700 days to verify genuineness of the order received on Email-Id.

The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Esha Bhattacharjee vs Managing Committee of Raghunathpur Nafar Academy and others Civil Appeal Nos.8183-8184 of 2013 vide order dated 13/09/2013 has laid down following principles for deciding Condonation Application: "Quote, 15. From the aforesaid authorities the principles that can broadly be culled out are: i) There should be a liberal, pragmatic, justice-oriented pedantic approach while dealing with an application for condonation of delay, for the courts are not supposed to legalise injustice but are obliged to remove injustice. ii) The terms “sufficient cause” should be understood in their proper spirit, philosophy and purpose regard being had to the fact that these terms are basically elastic and are to be applied in proper perspective to the obtaining fact- situation. iii) Substantial justice being paramount and pivotal the technical considerations should not be given undue and uncalled for emphasis. iv) No presumption can be attached to deliberate causation of delay but, gross negligence on the part of the counsel or litigant is to be taken note of. v) Lack of bona fides imputable to a party seeking condonation of delay is a significant and relevant fact. vi) It is to be kept in mind that adherence to strict proof should not affect public justice and cause public mischief because the courts are required to be vigilant so that in the ultimate eventuate there is no real failure of justice. vii) The concept of liberal approach has to encapsule the conception of reasonableness and it cannot be allowed a totally unfettered free play. viii) There is a distinction between inordinate delay and a delay of short duration or few days, for to the former doctrine of prejudice is attracted whereas to the latter it may not be attracted. That apart, the first one warrants strict approach whereas the second calls for a liberal delineation. ix) The conduct, behaviour and attitude of a party relating to its inaction or negligence are relevant factors to be taken into consideration. It is so as the fundamental principle is that the courts are required to weigh the scale of balance of justice in respect of both parties and the said principle cannot be given a total go by in the name of liberal approach. x) If the explanation offered is concocted or the grounds urged in the application are fanciful, the courts should be vigilant not to expose the other side unnecessarily to face such a litigation. xi) It is to be borne in mind that no one gets away with fraud, misrepresentation or interpolation by taking recourse to the technicalities of law of limitation. xii) The entire gamut of facts are to be carefully scrutinized and the approach should be based on the paradigm of judicial discretion which is founded on objective reasoning and not on individual perception. xiii) The State or a public body or an entity representing a collective cause should be given some acceptable latitude. ” Unquote.

When we apply the above criterion laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, it is noted that Hon'ble Supreme Court has specifically stated that there is distinction between inordinate delay and delay of short duration. The Hon'ble Supreme Court has stated that "whenever there is an inordinate delay, stricter approach needs to be adopted". In the case of the Assessee, there is 741 days inordinate delay. Hence, stricter approach is required. Also, the explanation offered by the Assessee is fanciful and shows negligence on the part of Assessee. No prudent person will wait for more than 700 days, because whenever an application for registration u/s.12A r.w.s 12AB is made by an Assessee, as per the Income Tax Act, the ld.CIT(E) has to decide the application within six months. Therefore, each and every Chartered Accountant or Counsel who helps Assessee in filing an application for Registration u/s.12A r.w.s 12AB of the Act, is aware of the fact that application will be decided within six months. Therefore, Assessee claiming that he was waiting for more than 700 days is beyond preponderance of probability.

It will not be inappropriate to mention here that the Assessee has not replied any of the notices issued by ld.CIT(E). This also explains the negligence on the part of the Assessee.

1 Therefore, for all the reasons discussed above, we are of the considered opinion that there was no sufficient reason for not filing

In these facts and circumstances of the case, the Delay of 741 days is not condoned and the appeal is dismissed.

In the result, appeal of the Assessee is dismissed. Order pronounced in the open Court on 31 October, 2025. VINAY BHAMORE JUDICIAL MEMBER Dr.DIPAK P. RIPOTE ACCOUNTANT MEMBER पुणे / Pune; दिनांक / Dated: 31 Oct, 2025/ SGR आदेशकीप्रतिलिपिअग्रेषित /