Loading judgment…
Facts
The appellant filed appeals against the rejection of applications for regular registration u/s.12AB and approval u/s.80G(5). The appeals were filed with a delay of 13 days. The appellant did not appear for the hearing, but the delay was condoned due to a reasonable cause.
Held
The Tribunal condoned the 13-day delay in filing the appeals and admitted them for adjudication. The Tribunal remitted the issue of registration and approval back to the CIT(E) for de novo adjudication, affording the appellant an opportunity to provide necessary details.
Key Issues
Whether the delay in filing the appeals can be condoned due to a reasonable cause, and whether the matter should be remitted for fresh adjudication after affording an opportunity to the appellant.
Sections Cited
12AB, 80G, 253, 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 “A”, PUNE
Before: DR.MANISH BORAD & SHRI VINAY BHAMORE
आदेश / ORDER
PER DR. MANISH BORAD, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER :
The captioned two appeals at the instance of appellant are against the rejection of applications for regular registration u/s.12AB(1)(ac)(iii) and approval u/s.80G(5) of the Act respectively framed by ld.CIT(E) dated 23.10.2024.
None appeared on behalf of the appellant despite due service of notice of hearing. A perusal of the record shows that the instant appeals are barred by limitation by 13 days. Application for condonation of delay has been filed by the appellant stating as follows :
“Application for condonation of delay U/s 5 of limitation Act In the Matter of appeal against the rejection of application for registration u/s 12AB of Balvikas Jankalyan & Sanskratik Sevabhavi Shikshan Prasarak Mandal Aurangabad.
Hon'ble Sir The petitioner most humbly submits as under:- 1) This petitioner is filing this appeal U/s 253 of Income Tax Act, before this Hon'ble Income Tax Appellate Tribunal which is based on very sound ground and this petitioner very hopeful in its success. However there is a delay in filling this appeal, therefore this petitioner has filed condonation of delay of filing appeal separate application for U/s 5 of Limitation Act. 2) That the petitioner has received order for rejection of application for registration U/s 12AB of income tax act 1961 on 23/10/2024. 3) In this case, the appeal was delayed by 13 days. This delay occurred because the society's representative handling this matter was unaware of the time limit for filing the appeal. Therefore, the society could not file the appeal within the limitation period. 4) That this act of not filling of appeal within prescribed period of limitation is not deliberate nor intentional but it is sheer an accidental. Hence in the interest of justice considering all the fact and circumstances delay of 13 days may kindly be condoned.”
After hearing the ld. Departmental Representative and considering the reasons giving rise to the delay and also placing reliance on the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Collector, Land Acquisition vs. Mst. Katiji & Ors. (1987) 2 SCC 107) we find that due to ‘reasonable cause’ appellant failed to file the appeals within the time limit stipulated under the Act. We therefore condone the delay of 13 days in filing the appeals and admit the appeals for adjudication.
With the assistance of Ld. Departmental Representative, we have perused the record and notice that the appellant filed applications for registration u/s.12A(1)(ac)(iii)/80G(5)(iii) of the Act by filing Form 10AB on 28.06.2024. Thereafter, ld.CIT(E) vide notice through ITBA portal on 29.07.2024 called for various details mentioned in pages 3 to 9 of the impugned orders. There was no compliance from the appellant’s side. Due to this failure ld.CIT(E) could not arrive at the conclusion about the and 91/PUN/2025 Balvikas Jankalyan & Sanskratik Sevabhavi Shikshan Prasarak Mandal genuineness of the activities of appellant and the compliance of requirement of any other law.
Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and also observing that the appellant society which has been registered with the object of noble vision to make quality education accessible to all sections of society particularly the economically disadvantaged and also engaged in providing primary and secondary education, in the interest of justice, we deem it to afford one more opportunity to the appellant to file necessary details before ld. CIT(E) as called for during the course of impugned proceedings based on which ld.CITE) shall decide in accordance with law. We therefore remit the issue of regular registration u/s.12A of the Act as well as approval u/s.80G(5) of the Act to the file of ld.CIT(E) for denovo adjudication. Needless to mention that ld.CIT(E) shall afford reasonable opportunity to the appellant to prove the genuineness of the activities. Appellant can make necessary submissions with regard to the grounds of appeal
raised before us. After considering the submissions of the appellant, ld.CIT(E) shall decide the appellant’s applications in accordance with law by passing a speaking order. Appellant is directed to provide updated email id and contact detail to the department for receiving the notices from ITBA portal. Appellant is also directed to remain vigilant and not to take unnecessary adjournment unless otherwise required for reasonable cause. Impugned orders are set aside and the effective grounds of appeal raised by the appellant in both the appeals are allowed for statistical purposes. and 91/PUN/2025 Balvikas Jankalyan & Sanskratik Sevabhavi Shikshan Prasarak Mandal
6. In the result, both the appeals of the appellant are allowed for statistical purposes.
Order pronounced on this 26th day of June, 2025.