NUTAN SHIKSHAN SADHANA TRUST ,VADODARA vs. CIT (EXEMPTION), AHEMDABAD

The grounds of appeal raised by the assessee are as under:

The appeal is time barred by 29 days. The assessee has filed condonation application seeking condonation of delay which reads as under:

The Ld. D.R. vehemently opposed the condonation of delay. But on perusing the contents of the explanation furnished by the assessee by way of an application for condonation of delay, we are [Nutan Shikshan Sadhana Trust vs. CIT(E)] - 3 – convinced that the delay cannot be attributable to complete laxity on the part of the assessee and there is sufficient cause for the delay. Even otherwise the assessee does not stand to benefit by not filing an appeal. In the interest of justice, therefore, we consider it fit to condone the small delay of 29 days in the filing of the present appeal before us and proceed to adjudicate the same.

The orders of the authorities below reveal that the assessee has been denied approval u/s.80G of the Act primarily for the reason that it did not co-operate in the proceedings before the Commissioner and, therefore, the Ld. CIT(E) was unable to verify the genuineness of the activities carried out by it as also the fulfillment of all the conditions necessary for granting approval u/s.80G(5) of the Act.

Before us, Ld. Counsel for the assessee contended that for the reasons stated in the application seeking condonation of delay, that the consultant of the assessee was unwell and the notice issued by the Ld.CIT(E) remained uncomplied with, he pleaded, therefore, for another opportunity to be given to the assessee to furnish all evidences to the Ld.CIT(E) to satisfy him about the genuineness of the activities carried out by the assessee trust as also the fulfillment of all conditions for grant of approval u/s.80G of the Act.

We have heard the Ld. Counsel for the assessee and we are not convinced with his explanation that the proceedings before the [Nutan Shikshan Sadhana Trust vs. CIT(E)] - 4 – Ld.CIT(E) could not be attended because the Consultant / Counsel of the assessee was unwell during that period. And this is for the reason that the medical certificate filed by the Ld. Counsel for the assessee alongwith his application seeking condonation of delay reveals the Doctor treating the Consultant to have stated the said person to be unwell and admitted frequently in the Hospital for two to three months due to heart and Kidney problem. This letter of the Doctor i.e. Dr. Mitesh M. Sutaria of Shreeji Hospital, Vadodara is dated 20th March, 2025. Therefore according to the doctors certificate the Consultant was unwell from January 2025 onwards. The Ld. CIT(E), however, issued notices on 3rd October, 2024, 7th November, 2024 and 10th December, 2024. The explanation of the assessee, therefore, that the proceedings could not be participated in because of the sickness of the Consultant, does not appear to be convincing. However, at the same time, we find that the assessee had been granted provisional approval u/s. 80G of the Act and was required as per law to seek final approval 6 months prior to the expiry of the provisional approval. Denial of the final approval without the assessee being heard, we are conscious, would have serious consequences, more particularly the assessee being unable to get donations for carrying out its charitable activities. In the light of the same, therefore, and keeping the interest of justice in mind, we are restoring the matter back to the file of the Ld.CIT(E) to afford a fresh opportunity of hearing to the assessee. At the same time noting that no sufficient cause has been given by the assessee for not cooperating in the proceedings in the first round, we consider it fit to impose a cost [Nutan Shikshan Sadhana Trust vs. CIT(E)] - 5 – of Rs.5000/- on the assessee, to be deposited to the Prime Ministers Relief Fund. The Ld.CIT(E) is directed to proceed with the matter once the assessee has deposited the fine. With the above direction, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes.

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