SAMAST BRAM YUVA TRUST,JUNAGADH vs. THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (EXEMPTION), AHMEDABAD

The appeal is time barred by 209 days. The assessee has filed condonation application seeking condonation of delay which reads as under:

As is evident from a perusal of the application filed, the explanation of the assessee for the delay in filing present appeal before us is the fact of the trustees not being well versed and well acquainted with the technology of the internet/email, through which, the present proceedings were undertaken, and therefore, did not access email where notices were being sent for hearing in the application of the assessee seeking approval u/s.12AB of the Act. For this reason, the proceedings were not participated by the assessee. The assessee has admitted to his lapse in filing of the present appeal and, therefore, sought condonation of delay.

Ld. DR opposed the same.

Having considered the application of the assessee we find the reasons given by the assessee to be bonafide. The assessee trust is located in Junagadh and since adoption of technology by the department for conducting proceeding was a recent development, it is not unreasonable that the assessee was not fully aware of the manner of usage of the same. The assessee could very well have missed out on accessing the notice sent on its email and for that matter even the order passed by the Ld. CIT(E) denying the approval u/s.12AB of the Act. The Ld. DR has been unable to [Samast Bram Yuva Trust vs. CIT(E)] - 4 – demonstrate any gross incorrectness in the reasons brought out by the assessee before us nor has he been able to demonstrate the lack of sufficient cause with the assessee for the delay. Considering the implication of not condoning the delay being denial of grant of registration as a charitable trust to the assessee resulting in the assessee being denied the benefit of exemption of its income, which is a very serious consequence, we are inclined to accept the explanation furnished by the assessee for the delay in the interest of justice. We accordingly condone the delay of 209 days in filing of the present appeal before us and proceed to adjudicate the same.

The order of the Ld. CIT(E) reveals that he has passed ex parte order denying registration in the absence of any evidences furnished by the assessee as to verify the objects of the assessee trust as also the genuineness of the activities carried out by it, which was essential for granting registration.

We have noted that only two opportunities of hearing were granted to the assessee i.e. on 10.12.2022 and 03.01.2023. Noting the explanation of the assessee furnished on oath by way of an affidavit stating that it was not familiar with the usage of technology and, therefore, did not access its email where the notice of hearing in the present case was served by the Ld. CIT(E), we are of the view that the denial of grant of registration for lack of any details submitted by the assessee is not justified. We, therefore, consider it fit to restore the matter back to the Ld. [Samast Bram Yuva Trust vs. CIT(E)] - 5 – CIT(E) to afford due opportunity of hearing to the assessee and, thereafter, pass order on the application of the assessee seeking registration u/s.12AB of the Act in accordance with law.

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