MODI CHARITABLE TRUST,AHMEDABAD vs. THE CIT(EXEMPTION), AHMEDABAD

The above two appeals have been preferred by the assessee against orders passed by the Ld.Commissioner of Income-Tax (Exemption), Ahmedabad [hereinafter referred to as “ld.CIT(E)] dated 15.5.2024 and 16.5.2024, whereby the ld.CIT(E) rejected the separate applications of the assessee-trust for final/regular approval u/s. 12A and u/s. 80G of the Income Tax Act, 1961 ("the Act" for short). Both these appeals are disposed of by this common order.

At the outset, it is noted that there ais a delay of 224 days in filing the present appeal before the Tribunal. The Registry has & 553/Ahd/2025 2 accordingly flagged the matter for consideration of the issue of limitation.

To explain the cause for the delay, the assessee has filed an affidavit duly sworn by Shri Suketu Modi, Trustee of the assessee- trust, which is common in both the appeals and contains identical submissions. It is explained therein that the assessee, being unfamiliar with income-tax proceedings, did not regularly check the income-tax e-filing portal, as it had not previously been involved in any income-tax litigation. It is further stated that the assessee only recently came to know about the rejection of its applications under section 80G(5)(iv) and section 12A of the Income-tax Act, 1961. On learning of the said rejection, the assessee immediately consulted its Chartered Accountant at Ahmedabad, who advised filing an appeal before the Tribunal. The assessee, thereafter, entrusted the matter to its Advocate for necessary action. The delay in filing the appeal, as submitted, occurred in this course due to bona fide reasons and unavoidable circumstances.

We have considered the submissions made by the assessee and have perused the affidavit filed by the assessee. The explanation offered by the assessee appears to be reasonable and bona fide. The cause for delay is not found to be deliberate or with any mala fide intent. We are, therefore, of the considered view that in the interest of justice and to render substantial justice, the impugned delay deserves to be condoned. Accordingly, the delay of 224 days in filing the appeals is condoned. The appeals are admitted for adjudication on merits.

On merit, the ld.counsel for the assessee submitted that the assessee was not conversant with the income tax proceedings nor & 553/Ahd/2025 3 faced any income tax litigation. That the assessee was not regularly checking the email on which the notice for hearing was allegedly sent by the ld.CIT(E), which resulted into non-representation of the assesse before the ld.CIT(E) and passing of the impugned ex parte order, rejecting the applications of the assessee for regular registration. The ld.counsel for the assessee submitted that the assessee may be given an opportunity to present its case, since the assessee has a valid and strong case, as the assessee has already granted provisional approval/registration, and there was no reason for non-granting of regular/final approval/registration.

The ld.DR, on the other hand, relied on the order of the ld.CIT(E).

Considering the above submissions of the assessee, in our view, interests of justice will be well served, if the assessee is given an opportunity to present its case before the ld.CIT(E). Accordingly, the impugned orders of the ld.CIT(E) are set aside and both the matters are restored to the file of the ld.CIT(E) for decision afresh on the applications of the assessee, after providing due opportunity of hearing to the assessee. The assessee is also directed cooperate with the proceedings and furnish necessary documents/evidences as may be required during the proceedings.

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee stand allowed for statistical. Order pronounced on 16th June, 2025.