SANSKRITIK MANDAL,AHMEDNAGAR vs. CIT EXEMPTION, PUNE

The captioned appeal at the instance of appellant is directed against the order dated 02.03.204 framed by ld.CIT(Exemption), Pune denying grant of regular registration u/s.12AB of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (in short ‘the Act’).

Registry informed that there is a delay of 149 days in filing of the instant appeal. Application for condonation of delay has been filed giving the reasons for such delay.

After hearing both the sides and considering the reasons stated by the appellant, we are of the opinion that the appellant has ‘sufficient cause’ which prevented from filing the appeal in time. We further taking liberal approach condone the delay placing reliance on the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Collector, Land Acquisition vs. Mst. Katiji & Ors. (supra) wherein it was held that when substantial justice and technical considerations are pitted against each other, cause of substantial justice deserves to be preferred for the other side cannot claim to have vested right in injustice being done because of a non- deliberate delay. Refusing to condone delay can result in a meritorious matter being thrown out at the very threshold and cause of justice being defeated. As against this when delay is condoned the highest that can happen is that a cause would be decided on merits after hearing the parties. We thus condone the delay in filing of the instant appeal and admit the appeal for adjudication.

At the outset, Ld. Counsel for the appellant submitted necessary compliance could not be made before the Id.CIT(E) due to certain unavoidable circumstances, assessee could not furnish any reply to the discrepancies communicated to it. He therefore submitted that in the interest of justice, the assessee should be given an opportunity to go before the Id.CIT(E) and also to submit necessary details including credible evidence to prove the genuineness of charitable activity carried out by the assessee. Therefore, a prayer is made to restore the issue on merits to the file of Id.CIT(E) for denovo adjudication. Ld. Counsel also placed on record the copy of order in order dated 11.03.2025 wherein this Tribunal has remitted back the issue of approval u/s.80G(5) to the file of ld.CIT(E). Ld. Departmental Representative was fair enough not to oppose this request.

We have heard the rival contentions and perused the record placed before us. We observe that the appellant filed an application for registration u/s.12A(1)(ac)(iii) of the Act on Form No.10AB on 30.09.2023. A perusal of the impugned order reveals that the appellant filed certain details in response to notice issued by ld.CIT(E). Thereafter, certain discrepancies were noticed by him for which he issued another notice through ITBA portal asking the assessee to make its submission clarifying the discrepancies to which there was no compliance. In the event, ld.CIT(E) rejected the application for grant of regular registration, denying provisional registration granted to the appellant on 12.05.2022.

We have given our thoughtful consideration to the facts and circumstances of the case, lack of proper and fair opportunity having been granted to appellant and the principles of nature justice being fair to both the parties and considering the submission of the ld. Counsel for the assessee, we are of the view that appellant deserves to be given one more opportunity to prove its case on merits. In view thereof and in the larger interest of justice, we deem it proper to set-aside the order of ld.CIT(E) and the remit the issues back to the file of ld.CIT(E) for necessary adjudication afresh with a direction to grant an opportunity to the appellant to substantiate its case by filing requisite details and decide the issue after giving due opportunity of being heard to the appellant. Appellant is also hereby directed to make its submissions, if any, before the ld. CIT(E) on the appointed date without seeking any adjournment unless for reasonable cause, failing which the ld. CIT(E) will be at liberty to pass appropriate order as per fact and law. Thus, grounds of appeal raised by the appellant are allowed for statistical purposes.