NAMDEO SHIMPI SAMAJ PANCH MANDAL,AHILYANAGAR vs. CIT, EXEMPTION, PUNE

The captioned appeal at the instance of assessee is directed against the order dated 22.02.2024 framed by ld.CIT (Exemption), Pune denying grant of regular registration u/s.12A(1)(ac) of the Act.

However, on 29/01/2024 the entire management committee has changed including the trustee whose mail id was given for communication.

Therefore, we could not know about the order of the CIT(E) Pune about the rejection of the application and therefore, we could not file the appeal before the Hon'ble Bench in time. 5. The moment we came to know about the impugned order, we have prepared the appeal and filing the same before the Hon'ble Bench. 6. Due to the above genuine difficulty, there is delay in filing the said appeal by 302 days (from 22.04.2024 to 18.02. 2025 in filing the said appeal. 7. Given these circumstances, I sincerely request the Hon'ble Bench to kindly condone the said delay of 302 days in filing the appeal.”

We have heard the rival submissions and gone through the averments made in the affidavit. Hon’ble courts in plethora of judgments observed that when consideration of an appeal on merits is pitted against the rejection of a meritorious claim on the technical ground of the bar of limitation, the Courts lean towards consideration on merits by adopting a liberal approach towards ‘sufficient cause’ to condone the delay. The Court considering an application under section 5 of the Limitation Act may also look into the prima facie merits of an appeal. A liberal approach may be adopted when some plausible cause for delay is shown. Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Inder Singh Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh judgment dated 21.03.2025 (2025 INSC 382) condoned delay of 1537 days sub-serving the cause of justice. It was held so while observing that the appeal filed by the appellant with a delay was unintentional, much less due to any deliberate laches, and was well-explained by the State before the High Court. Hon’ble Court further held that in cases where the merits are significant, a more liberal approach may be adopted to allow Namdeo Shimpi Samaj Panch Mandal for the examination of the case on its merits. Having gone through the averments made in the affidavit and considering the ratio laid down by the Hon’ble Court in the case of Inder Singh (supra), we are of the view that there was ‘reasonable cause’ which prevented the assessee in filing the appeal within the stipulated time. We therefore condone the delay of 302 days and admit the appeal for adjudication.

We have duly considered the rival submissions and carefully examined the material available on record. Upon perusal of the impugned order, it emerges that the core grievance of the assessee pertains to the rejection of its application for grant of regular registration u/s.12A(1)(ac) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, by the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemptions) [ld. CIT(E)]. Rejection of the assessee’s application was primarily on the ground that the assessee failed to offer any explanation or furnish requisite details in response to the discrepancies communicated, despite having been afforded adequate opportunities. However, taking cognizance of the fact that the management of the assessee got changed and the trustee whose email id was given for receiving the notices also got retired without informing the assessee about the hearing notices and passing of the impugned order, we are of the considered view that, in the interest of justice and to ensure fairness to both parties, the assessee deserves one more opportunity to present its Namdeo Shimpi Samaj Panch Mandal case. Accordingly, the matter is remanded to the file of the ld. CIT(E) for denovo adjudication on merits. It is imperative that the ld. CIT(E) grants a reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee and pass a reasoned and speaking order after duly considering the explanation to be furnished by the assessee. Assessee is directed to provide its updated email address and contact details to the Department to facilitate effective communication of notices through the ITBA portal. Assessee is further advised to exercise due diligence and avoid seeking adjournments except for bonafide and justifiable reasons. In this view of the matter, impugned order is hereby set aside and the effective grounds of appeal raised by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes.

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes.