SHRI SAINATH EDUCATION & CHERITABLE TRUST,VADODARA vs. THE CIT(EXEMPTION), AHMEDABAD

He saw the impugned order on the portal and advised us to file the present appeal. After taking advice from the lawyer based at Ahmedabad, we handed over the necessary papers around 17.02.2025 and the present appeal was filed around 24.03.2025. It is because of the above bonafied reasons that a delay of around 114 days has occurred in filing the present appeal.

The applicant submits that the delay caused is not because of any malafide or negligence on the part of the applicant but because of the inaction of the accountant as mentioned above. Therefore, it is kindly requested that the delay of 114 days in filing the present appeal be condoned.” Basis the said application, Ld. Counsel for the assessee pleaded that delay of 114 days in filing of the appeal was on account of the person handling the accounts and tax matters of the assessee Trust leaving the Trust and only thereafter when the new accountant checked the portal that he found the order of the Ld. CIT(E) denying grant of registration to the assessee Trust. That proactive steps were immediately taken and appeal filed to ITAT against the [Shri Sainath Education & Cheritable Trust vs. CIT(E)] - 3 – said order, with a delay of 114 days. Ld.Counsel for the assessee pleaded that the delay was not on account of any laxity on the part of the assessee and the assessee did not benefit by not filing appeal. He therefore requested the delay to be condoned.

Ld. DR objected to the condonation of delay.

Having gone through the application filed by the assessee Trust, duly supported by a sworn affidavit of the Trustee of the Trust, we are convinced that there was sufficient cause for the delay in filing appeal before us and which delay was not attributable to the assessee but was on account of circumstances prevailing which resulted in the order passed by the Ld. CIT(E) not coming to the notice of the concerned persons of the assessee Trust. The assessee Trust has submitted that its accountant who was handling all accounts related matter had left the job when the order was passed, and therefore the Trust was unaware of the passing of the order till it was detected on the portal by a new Accountant. The Revenue has not pointed out any infirmity in the explanation so offered for delay in filing appeal. Moreover, not condoning the delay would result in serious consequences to the assessee Trust, disentitling it to claim exemption of its income, without considering the genuineness of its claim as per law. In the interest of justice therefore, finding sufficient and reasonable cause being furnished by the assessee for the delay of 114 days in the filing of the present appeal before us, we consider it fit to [Shri Sainath Education & Cheritable Trust vs. CIT(E)] - 4 – condone the delay. The delay of 114 days in filing of the present appeal before us is accordingly condoned.

Taking up the appeal for adjudication, the ground of appeal of the assessee relates to the rejection of application filed seeking registration u/s.12A of the Act.

We have gone through the provisions of section 12A(1)(ac) of the Act which are as under:

As is evident from a bare reading of the above, the sub clause lists the different circumstances in which application [Shri Sainath Education & Cheritable Trust vs. CIT(E)] - 6 – seeking registration of a Trust is to be made so as to be eligible for grant of exemption of income u/s 11 /12 of the Act. The circumstance listed in sub clause (ii) is where a trust is registered u/s 12AB and the period of registration is due to expire, then application for grant of registration is to be moved as per sub clause (ii) of section 12A(1)(ac) of the Act. Sub Clause (iii) lists the circumstance where provisional registration is granted to the assessee u/s.12AB and the period of the same is about to expire or the assessee has commenced its activities, whichever is earlier.

Therefore the only difference in circumstance listed in the two sub clauses is regarding being registered already u/s 12AB of the Act or being provisionally registered under the said section. Dehors the existing fact, the Ld. CIT(E), in both circumstance, has still to verify the genuineness of the assessee Trust vis-a-vis its charitable objects and activities. The mere mentioning of incorrect sub clause has no material impact on the facts of the Trust seeking registration, whose objects and activities still need to be verified by the Ld. CIT(E). The difference in the two situations, we find is not material enough to justify its rejection as non-maintainable merely for having been furnished under an incorrect sub clause. The fact of the Trust being registered or provisionally registered is available with the department, as noted by the Ld. CIT(E) in the present case also. The Ld. CIT(E), we hold, therefore ought to have considered the application as filed in the correct sub clause and proceeded thereafter to decide whether the Trust was eligible to grant of registration u/s 12A of the Act.

The application of the assessee is therefore restored back to the Ld.CIT(E) with the direction to consider it afresh for grant of registration, treating it as filed by the assessee under the correct sub clause.

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