Loading judgment…
No AI summary yet for this case.
Detected automatically from the text. The count shows how many other judgments on BharatTax rely on the same authority.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “C” BENCH, AHMEDABAD
Before: Ms SUCHITRA KAMBLE & SHRI MAKARAND V. MAHADEOKAR
PER MAKARAND V. MAHADEOKAR, AM: These two appeals by the assessee are directed against two separate orders of the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemption), Ahmedabad [hereinafter referred to as “CIT(E)"], both rejecting and cancelling the assessee's provisional registration/approval and dismissing its applications for final registration/approval under section 12AB and section 80G(5) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 [hereinafter referred to as "the Act"]. Since common issues are involved, both the appeals were heard together and are being disposed of by this consolidated order for the sake of convenience. Condonation of Delay
In the appeal in ITA No. 443/Ahd/2025, there is a delay of 455 days in filing the appeal as noted by the Registry. The assessee has filed an affidavit dated 12.08.2025 sworn by the trustee Shri Bharathbhai Babubhai Doshi, stating that the assessee was never served with the notices or rejection order and it came to know of the rejection only upon receipt of a show cause notice dated 24.01.2025 in assessment proceedings for A.Y. 2023-24, wherein reference to the rejection order was made. It was submitted that the delay was unintentional, bona fide, and due to absence of service of notice/order.
The affidavit is supported by evidence in the form of copies of the notices downloaded from the assessee's e-filing portal log-in, which show that in the “To” field, no email address of the assessee is mentioned, indicating defective electronic service.
The Departmental Representative (DR), considering the facts and circumstances, raised no objection in condoning the delay.
We have carefully considered the rival submissions and examined the material on record. The chronology of events set out above shows that the assessee acted promptly once it became aware of the rejection order. The explanation offered is consistent, supported by evidence, and does not indicate any mala fides or deliberate inaction. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Collector, Land Acquisition v. Mst. Katiji & Ors. [167 ITR 471 (SC)] has laid down that a liberal approach is to be adopted in considering “sufficient cause" under limitation provisions, so as to advance substantial justice where no gross negligence or deliberate delay is shown. In our view, the cause shown by the assessee constitutes “sufficient cause" within the meaning of section 253(5) of the Act. The delay being neither deliberate nor lacking in bona fides, we condone the delay and admit the appeal. Facts of the Case
The assessee, a public charitable trust registered under the Bombay Public Trusts Act, 1950, bearing Registration No. E/546/Bhavnagar, had been provisionally registered under section 12AB vide order dated 14.10.2021 for A.Y. 2022–23. On 04.03.2023, it filed an application in Form No. 10AB under section 12A(1)(ac)(iii) seeking final registration. The learned CIT(E) issued notices dated 18.07.2023, 19.08.2023, and 12.09.2023 requiring the assessee to furnish certain details/documents to examine the genuineness of activities and compliance with law. As per the CIT(E)'s order dated 19.09.2023, no reply was received to any of these notices. The CIT(E), relying inter alia on the Supreme Court decisions in CIT v. Dawoodi Bohra Jamat (Civil Appeal No. 2492 of 2014) and M/s New Noble Educational Society (Civil Appeal No. 3795 of 2014), held that in the absence of requisite details, he could not satisfy himself about (i) the genuineness of activities; (ii) their consonance with the objects of the trust; and (iii) compliance with other laws material to the purpose. Consequently, the application for registration was rejected and the provisional registration was cancelled. The assessee also applied in Form No. 10AB under clause (iii) of the first proviso to section 80G(5) for final approval, having earlier obtained provisional approval. The learned CIT(E) issued notices dated 05.12.2024 and 02.01.2025 requiring details/documents to verify the genuineness of activities and satisfaction of conditions under section 80G(5)(i)-(v). As per the CIT(E)'s order dated 04.02.2025, there was no compliance to these notices. The learned CIT(E) therefore held that the assessee failed to establish the genuineness of activities and fulfilment of statutory conditions and accordingly rejected the application and cancelled the provisional approval.
Aggrieved by the orders of CIT(E), the assessee is in appeal before us raising following grounds of appeal: In ITA No. 448/Ahd/2025
The Ld. CIT-Exemption, Ahmedabad has erred in law in rejecting the application for registration of the trust u/s 12AB of the IT Act on the ground that appellant failed to respond the various notices, however, the fact is that no such notices had been served on the appellant.
The appellant craves leave to add, alter or delete any ground either before or in the course of hearing of the appeal. In ITA No. 449/Ahd/2025
The Ld. CIT-Exemption, Ahmedabad has erred in law in rejecting the application for seeking registration under clause (iii) of first proviso to sub- section (5) of the section 80G of the Income Tax Act on the ground that appellant trust failed to respond the various notices due to compelling circumstances. The appellant, therefore, prays that it may please be afforded one more opportunity to produce all the relevant documents and make submissions before the Ld. CIT-Exemption, Ahmedabad.
The appellant craves leave to add, alter or delete any ground either before or in the course of hearing of the appeal.
The Authorised Representative (AR) of the assessee reiterated the affidavit contents and argued that the assessee was deprived of an effective opportunity as the notices were never served. The AR also pointed to the downloaded notices from the portal showing absence of the assessee's email address in the delivery details and submitted that rejection without proper service violates principles of natural justice.
The DR relied on the impugned orders of the CIT(E).
We have considered the rival submissions and perused the material available on record. The chronology of events as narrated in the affidavit and supported by documentary evidence shows that the assessee became aware of the rejection orders only upon receipt of the assessment show cause notice dated 24.01.2025. The appeal in the section 12AB matter was thereafter filed promptly on 27.02.2025. We find that both impugned orders have been passed ex parte on the basis of non-compliance to notices. The assessee has placed prima facie evidence suggesting defective electronic service. In such circumstances, and in the interest of substantial justice, we deem it fit to set aside both the orders to the file of the learned CIT(E) for fresh adjudication. The learned CIT(E) shall issue notices afresh at the correct registered email address and by other permissible modes, afford adequate opportunity to the assessee to file documents and explanations, and decide the applications for registration under section 12AB and approval under section 80G(5) on merits, in accordance with law.
In the combined result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced in the Open Court on 19th August, 2025 at Ahmedabad. (SUCHITRA KAMBLE) JUDICIAL MEMBER () Ahmedabad, Dated 19/08/2025 Manish, Sr. PS (MAKARAND V.MAHADEOKAR) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER आदेश की प्रतिलिपि अग्रेषित/