NALANDA EDUCATION TRUST,AHMEDABAD vs. THE CIT(EXEMPTION), AHMEDABAD

There was a delay of 396 days in filing of this appeal. The assessee has filed an affidavit explaining the reason of delay. It has been submitted that the email address for communicating the [Nalanda Education Trust vs. CIT(E)] - 2 – correspondences pertained to the Chartered Accountant who was filing the regular income tax return. The said Chartered Accountant neither complied to the notices of Ld. CIT(E) nor informed the assessee about the final order passed by the Ld. CIT(E). The assessee came to know about the order of the Ld. CIT(E) only when the demand raised by the department was pressed and thereafter, filed the present appeal. It was submitted that the delay in the filing of the present appeal was due to non- communication of the notices/orders by the Chartered Accountant and there was no malafide intention on the part of the assessee. We have considered the explanation of the assessee. It is found that the assessee did not respond to any of the notices of Ld. CIT(E). Therefore, the application for registration of the trust was rejected. Considering the fact that the assessee is a trust running educational institutions as well as the explanation of the assessee, the delay in filing the present appeal is condoned.

The brief facts of the case are that the assessee had filed an application for registration of the trust u/s.12AB of the Act in Form No.10AB. The Ld. CIT(E) had called for certain details and documents vide notices dated 18.07.2023 and 19.08.2023, which was not complied. Thereafter, a final opportunity was provided vide notice dated 12.09.2023, to which also, there was no response by the assessee. In the absence of any explanation, the Ld. CIT(E) was not satisfied about the genuineness of the activities of the trust and, therefore, he rejected the application for registration of the trust.

Per contra, Shri Prathvi Raj Meena, Ld. CIT.DR had no objection if the matter was set aside to the file of the Ld. CIT(E).

We have considered the rival submissions. We are not convinced with the explanation of the assessee for non- compliance before the Ld. CIT(E). The assessee cannot escape by passing on the blame to his counsel. When the application for registration of the trust was filed by the assessee, it was the responsibility of the assessee to pursue the matter diligently and enquire about the progress of the application. The Ld. CIT(E) had allowed as many as three opportunities to the assessee but no compliance was made on any of the dates. We, therefore, deem it proper to impose a cost of Rs.10,000/- on the assessee, which should be paid to the Income Tax department within two weeks of receipt of this order. Further, considering the fact that the assessee is engaged in carrying on charitable activities, we deem it proper to set aside the matter to the file of the Ld. CIT(E) with a direction to allow another opportunity to the assessee to file the [Nalanda Education Trust vs. CIT(E)] - 4 – details and documents as required. The assessee is also directed to make necessary compliance before the Ld. CIT(E).

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