MAHARSHI YAGYAVALKYA GYANPEETH,AHMEDABAD vs. THE CIT(EXEMPTION), AHMEDABAD

2.2 In support of the claim that no notices were served, the AR placed on record PDF printouts of the alleged notices downloaded from the assessee’s e-filing portal, namely:

• Notice dated 22.07.2023 (DIN: 1054527654) • Notice dated 22.08.2023 (DIN: 1055318647) • Notice dated 12.09.2023 (DIN: 1056008597)

2.3 These downloaded files are devoid of any email address, communication delivery detail, or dispatch metadata and they merely reflect the document file names without confirming actual service or issuance of notice.

2.4 We further noted that the Revenue has not produced any proof of email delivery, SMS communication, postal dispatch, or acknowledgment evidencing that the notices were actually served on the assessee. In such circumstances, in absence of proof of valid service, the assessee’s plea that it remained unaware of the rejection orders till 22.11.2024 cannot be brushed aside as untenable. It is a settled principle of law that effective service of notice or order is a precondition for the limitation under section 253(3) to commence. We are of the opinion that technical delay should not defeat substantive rights if sufficient cause is shown. In case of Collector, Land Acquisition vs. Mst. Katiji [(1987) 167 ITR 471 (SC)], the Apex Court emphasised a liberal and justice-oriented approach while deciding applications for condonation of delay.

2.5 In the instant case, the delay is unintentional, as it is occasioned by non-service of orders; Not deliberate, as appeals were filed promptly after becoming aware of the orders; Substantiated, through both affidavit and documentary material; Unopposed, since no contrary evidence of valid service has been produced by Revenue. In view of the above facts and settled legal position, we are satisfied that the delay in both appeals deserves to be condoned in the interest of substantial justice.

3. The assessee, a registered trust, had filed applications in Form No. 10AB for (i) regular registration under section 12AB of the Income-tax Act, 1961, and (ii) approval under section 80G(5)(iii). The assessee was earlier granted provisional registration under section 12A(1)(ac)(vi) on 24.01.2023 and provisional approval under section 80G(5)(iv) on 06.03.2023 for the period A.Y. 2023–24 to A.Y. 2025–26. The CIT(Exemption), Ahmedabad, passed the following two orders:

Order dated 18.09.2023 rejecting the assessee’s application under i. section 12AB on the ground that the assessee failed to respond to notices and did not establish the genuineness of its activities.

Order dated 22.09.2023 rejecting the application under section ii. 80G(5)(iii) and cancelling the provisional approval granted earlier, on the ground that the assessee did not possess a valid registration under section 12A at the relevant time and the application was filed belatedly. In both cases, the orders were passed without any appearance by the assessee and proceeded ex parte.

1. The Ld. CIT-Exemption, Ahmedabad has erred in law in rejecting the application for registration of the trust u/s 12A 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.

2. The appellant craves leave to add, alter or delete any ground either before or in the course of hearing of the appeal. In 1. The Ld. CIT-Exemption, Ahmedabad has erred in law in rejecting the application for registration of the trust u/s 80G(5) (iii) of the Income Tax Act on the ground that appellant does not have any valid order for registration u/s. 12A(1)(ac) (ii) of the Act in form No.10AD.

2. The appellant craves leave to add, alter or delete any ground either before or in the course of hearing of the appeal.

5.1 The Learned Departmental Representative did not raise any objection to the assessee’s request for restoring both matters to the file of the CIT(Exemption) for fresh consideration.

6.1 Further, the rejection of the 80G application on the ground of absence of valid registration under section 12A(1)(ac)(ii), while the registration application itself stood rejected in parallel, renders both orders interdependent. In our view, it was incumbent upon the Ld. CIT(Exemption) to adjudicate both applications on merits, after granting an effective opportunity of hearing.

6.2 The assessee has brought on record sufficient material to explain the cause of delay, and we are satisfied that the delay is neither deliberate nor negligent. The Department has not disputed the assessee’s explanation or produced any contrary evidence. In such circumstances, the delay deserves to be condoned and the matters remanded for fresh consideration.

6.3 Accordingly, we are of the considered view that both matters require restoration to the file of the CIT(Exemption), Ahmedabad, to be decided afresh in accordance with law and after affording adequate opportunity to the assessee.

6.4 In the result the delay in filing both the appeals is condoned; the impugned orders passed by the CIT(Exemption), Ahmedabad are hereby set aside; Both matters are restored to the file of the CIT(Exemption), Ahmedabad, with a direction to decide the respective applications afresh after providing due opportunity of hearing to the assessee and in accordance with law.