SHREE KAMITPURAN ARIHANT JAIN CHARITABLE TRUST,BHIWANDI vs. CIT EXEMPTION, PUNE

PDF · subscribers
ITA 1051/PUN/2025Status: DisposedITAT Pune06 June 2025AY 2022-234 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal condoned the delay of 379 days in filing the appeal, taking a liberal approach in the interest of justice, considering the illness of the key personnel as a reasonable cause for the delay. The Tribunal noted that the sole grievance of the assessee was the rejection of its application for registration under Section 12A(1)(ac)(vi). The rejection by the CIT(E) was based on the assessee's failure to furnish information and details despite sufficient opportunities. In the larger interest of justice and fairness, the Tribunal decided to remit the issue of regular registration back to the file of the CIT(E) for fresh adjudication. The CIT(E) was directed to provide a reasonable opportunity to the assessee to present its case. The assessee was also directed to update its contact details on the income tax portal and avoid seeking adjournments without reasonable cause. The grounds of appeal were allowed for statistical purposes.

What were the facts?

The assessee, Shree Kamitpuran Arihant Jain Charitable Trust, filed an appeal against the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemptions), Pune (CIT(E)), dated 06/02/2024, which rejected its application for registration under Section 12AB read with Section 12A(1)(ac)(vi) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The appeal was filed with a delay of 379 days. The assessee's application for registration was rejected by the CIT(E) because the assessee failed to provide requested information and details, despite being given sufficient opportunities. The assessee contended that the delay was due to the illness of the person responsible for filing the appeal.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the appeal filed by the assessee is barred by limitation, and if so, whether the delay should be condoned? (Question of procedure turning on the principles of natural justice and condonation of delay). Assessee's Contention: The delay of 379 days in filing the appeal was due to the serious lumbar spine problem and posterior bulging disc of Mr. Amit Kumar, who was responsible for the work, preventing him from attending to his duties. This was a reasonable cause, and the delay was not intentional. Revenue's Contention: The judgment records no specific contention from the revenue regarding the delay or the substantive issue, other than the fact that the appeal was filed late and the application for registration was rejected by the CIT(E) due to non-compliance by the assessee.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 12AB,Section 12A(1)(ac)(vi)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, PUNE “B” BENCH : PUNE

Before: DR. MANISH BORAD & SHRI VINAY BHAMORE

Shree Kamitpuran Arihant CIT (Exemption), Pune. Jain Charitable Trust, Flat No. 401, 4th Floor, Wing C-2, vs. Adeshwar Tower, Kamatghar, Bhiwandi Dist. Thani-421305 PAN : AAZTS 2380 Q (Appellant) (Respondent) For Assessee : None For Revenue : Shri Rajesh Ranjan -CIT DR Date of Hearing : 05.06.2025 Date of Pronouncement : 06.06.2025 ORDER PER DR. MANISH BORAD, AM:

This appeal filed by the assessee is directed against the order passed by the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemptions), Pune [“CIT(E)”] dated 06/02/2024; whereby application for registration u/s. 12AB r.w.s.12A(1)(ac)(vi) of the Act has been rejected.

2.

When the case called for, none appeared on behalf of the assessee. With the assistance of ld. DR and on perusal of the record, we find that the appeal is barred by limitation by 379 days. Application for condonation of delay along with affidavit

2 ITA.No.1051/PUN/2025 is placed on record. The delay in filing the present appeal is stated to be mainly on account of illness of Mr. Amit Kumar, who was responsible for the work for filing the appeal, but since he had serious lumbar spine problem and diagnosed with a small posterior bulging disc, he was unable to attend the work. Considering the reasonable cause mentioned in the affidavit, we note that the delay is not intentional and the assessee would not have gained from delay in filing the present appeal. In the larger interest of justice and taking liberal approach, we hereby condone the delay of 379 days and admit the appeal for adjudication.

3.

From perusal of the grounds, we notice that the sole grievance of the assessee is against the rejection of the application for regulation registration u/s. 12A(1)(ac)(vi) of the Act filed on Form No.10AB with Ld.CIT(E) on 23/09/2023.

4.

We have heard Ld.DR and perused the record placed before us. We notice that the assessee’s application for regulation registration u/s. 12A(1)(ac)(vi) of the Act has been rejected on the ground that the assessee did not file information/details as called for by Ld.CIT(E). As per the Ld.CIT(E), the basic details required to ascertain the overall nature of the activities of the assessee and directly relating to the proceedings of granting registration u/s. 12A of the Act were not filed by the assessee in spite of sufficient opportunity.

3 ITA.No.1051/PUN/2025 Further, we notice that few opportunities were given to the assessee and considering that the key person looking after the taxation work is stated to be ill at that point of time, we therefore, in the larger interest of justice and being fair to both parties, remit the issue of regular registration to the assessee u/s. 12A(1)(ac)(vi) to the file of the Ld.CIT(E) for afresh adjudication, which shall be carried out after providing reasonable opportunity to the assessee. Assessee is also directed to provide the latest email ID and contact details on the income tax portal and also refrain from taking adjournments unless otherwise required for reasonable cause. Grounds of appeal raised by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes.

5.

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

Order pronounced in the open Court on 06.06.2025.

More judgments on Section 12AB

All 5,972 judgments and leading authorities on Section 12AB →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →