Loading judgment…
Facts
The appellant trust filed applications for registration u/s 12AB and approval u/s 80G. The CIT(E) rejected these applications after the appellant failed to provide complete information in response to two notices.
Held
The Tribunal acknowledged a delay in filing the appeals, which was condoned based on a reasonable cause shown in an affidavit. The impugned orders of the CIT(E) were set aside, and the issues were restored to the file of the CIT(E) for a final opportunity to the appellant.
Key Issues
Whether the CIT(E) was justified in rejecting the applications for registration and approval due to non-compliance, and if a further opportunity should be granted to the assessee.
Sections Cited
12AB, 80G, 12A
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
आदेश / ORDER
PER DR. MANISH BORAD, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER :
The captioned appeals at the instance of appellant are against the rejection of applications for regular registration u/s.12AB(1)(b)(i) and approval u/s.80G of the Act respectively framed by CIT(E), Pune dated 15.04.2024.
Registry has informed that there is delay of 27 days and 372 days respectively in preferring the instant appeals before this Tribunal. Assessee has filed an affidavit explaining the reasons which led to delay in filing of the appeals.
After hearing both the sides and perusing the averments made in the affidavits, we are satisfied that due to ‘reasonable cause’ assessee failed to file the appeals within the stipulated time. We note that the assessee would not have gained from filing the appeals with a delay. We therefore in light of and 1627/PUN/2025 Ratnatray Foundation 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 in filing the appeals 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 27.10.2023. In order to verify the genuineness of activities of the appellant trust, the ld. CIT (Exemption) issued a notice dt. 16.01.2024 through ITBA portal calling upon the appellant trust to file certain information/clarification. Assessee furnished the requisite details. Thereafter, ld.CIT(E) issued another notice dated 03.04.2024 communicating the discrepancies in the information so filed. There was no compliance from the side of the appellant to the said notice issued by ld.CIT(E). In the circumstances, the ld. CIT(Exemption) rejected the application filed for grant of regular registration. Similar is the fate of application for approval u/s.80G(5) of the Act.
Being aggrieved, the appellant trust has approached this Tribunal assailing the impugned orders.
Ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted that assessee could not make proper compliance to the second notice(s) issued by ld.CIT(E) for the reasons beyond control of the assessee. A prayer is made to provide one more opportunity by remitting the issues. and 1627/PUN/2025 Ratnatray Foundation 7. Ld. DR relying on the order of ld. CIT(Exemption) submitted that appellant failed to avail the ample opportunities provided to it. Therefore, ld. CIT (Exemption) had rightly rejected the applications 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) for the second notice 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. The appellant’s application for grant of approval u/s.80G has also been rejected by the Ld. CIT(E) on the similar grounds.
Vide grounds of appeal, the appellant claimed that eventhough the relevant information has been furnished in response to first notice, ld.CIT(E) without taking cognizance of the same and without providing proper opportunity summarily rejected the application for grant of regular registration.
10. 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(s) of the Ld. CIT(E) and restore the issue(s) 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 and 80G of the Act afresh in accordance with law. Appellant is also hereby and 1627/PUN/2025 Ratnatray Foundation 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(s) as per law. Grounds raised by the appellant in both the appeals are accordingly allowed for statistical purposes.
11. In the result, both the appeals filed by the appellant are allowed for statistical purposes.
Order pronounced on this 09th day of September, 2025.