SHREE KHANDIBA DE vs. TAN TRUST,PUNEVS.CIT-EXEMPTION , PUNE

The captioned appeal at the instance of appellant is against the rejection of application filed u/s.12A(1)(ac)(iii) of the Act for regular registration framed by CIT(E), Pune dated 22.10.2024.

Registry has informed that there is delay of 129 days in preferring the instant appeal before this Tribunal. Appellant has filed an application for condonation of delay explaining the reasons which led to delay in filing of the appeal.

After hearing both the sides and perusing the averments made in the affidavit, we are satisfied that due to ‘reasonable cause’ appellant failed to file the appeal within the stipulated time. We note that the appellant would not have gained from filing the appeal with a delay. We therefore in light of judgments of Hon’ble Apex Court 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 129 days in filing the appeal before this Tribunal.

Briefly, the facts of the case are that the appellant is a trust, filed application in Form No.10AB under clause (iii) of section 12A(1)(ac) for grant of registration u/s.12AB of the Act on 29.06.2024. In order to verify the genuineness of activities of the appellant trust, the ld. CIT (Exemption) issued a notice dt. 05.08.2024 through ITBA portal calling upon the appellant trust to file certain information/clarification. There was no compliance from the side of the appellant to the said notice issued by ld.CIT(E) even to the subsequent notice issued on 04.10.2024. In the circumstances, the ld. CIT(Exemption) rejected the application filed for grant of regular registration.

Being aggrieved, the appellant trust has approached this Tribunal assailing the impugned order.

Ld. Counsel for the appellant submitted that appellant could not make proper compliance to the notices issued by ld.CIT(E) for the reasons beyond control of the appellant. A prayer is made to provide one more opportunity by remitting the issues.

Ld. DR relying on the order of ld. CIT (Exemption) submitted that appellant failed to avail the ample opportunities provided. Therefore, ld. CIT (Exemption) had rightly rejected the application filed by the appellant trust.

We have heard the rival contentions and perused the relevant material on record placed before us. Appellant is aggrieved by the rejection of application for grant of regular registration u/s.12A of the Act. It is an admitted fact that the appellant failed to make compliance before ld.CIT(E) substantiating the charitable activities carried by it due to which the Ld. CIT(E) rejected the application of the appellant for regular registration u/s.12A and also cancelled the provisional registration granted earlier.

Considering the totality of the facts and in the circumstances of the case enumerated above and in the larger interest of justice, we deem it proper, to set aside the impugned order of the Ld. CIT(E) and restore the issues to the file of ld.CIT(E) with a direction to grant one final opportunity to the appellant to explain and substantiate its case by filing the requisite details as may be required/ called upon and decide both the applications of the appellant u/s.12A of the Act afresh in accordance with law. Appellant is also hereby directed to remain vigilant and make its submissions on the appointed date without seeking any adjournment under any pretext unless required for the sufficient cause, failing which the Ld. CIT(E) shall be at liberty to pass appropriate order as per law. Grounds raised by the appellant are accordingly allowed for statistical purposes.

In the result, the appeal filed by the appellant is allowed for statistical purposes.