MAA DURGA GUMTI MANDIR GAUSHALA TRUST, KURUKSHETRA,KURUKSHETRA vs. THE CIT EXEMPTIONS, CHANDIGARH, CHANDIGARH

That the rejection of adjournment application as sought by the assessee on 25.09.2025 was on account of reasonable cause and, thus, that adjournment should have been granted, rather registration rejecting the under section 12AВ of the Act. 4. Notwithstanding the above said ground of appeal, the Ld. CIT (Exemptions) having not given any finding on merits of the case and, thus, the rejections of application u/s 12AB by the CIT (Exemptions), is not a correct finding. 5. That the appellant craves leave to add or amend the grounds of appeal before the appeal is finally heard or disposed off.

Briefly, the facts of the case are that the assessee trust filed an application in Form 10AB on 10/06/2025 seeking registration under Section 12A(1)(ac)(iii). To verify the genuineness of the activities and compliance with the trust's objects, the CIT(E) issued a questionnaire on 21/07/2025. Subsequent opportunities were afforded on 29/08/2025 and 18/09/2025. 4. The CIT(E) noted that while the notices were delivered and viewed on the portal, the assessee repeatedly sought adjournmentsspecifically on 05/08/2025, 05/09/2025, and 25/09/2025. Consequently, the CIT(E) rejected the application, citing a lack of sufficient documentation to assess the genuineness of activities. 5. The learned counsel for the Assessee submitted that the non-compliance at the lower level was not intentional. The appellant has placed on record an affidavit from the erstwhile counsel, which clarifies:  The failure to upload the requested documents and the repeated requests for adjournments were due to the counsel's professional oversight and personal constraints.  The trust had provided the necessary records to the representative, but they were not electronically filed in a timely manner.  It was argued that the Assessee should not be penalized for the mistakes of its counsel, especially when the trust's objects are purely charitable.

The learned Departmental Representative (DR) strongly opposed the remand of the matter. The DR’s arguments included:  The CIT(E) afforded sufficient and reasonable opportunities.  The record shows the notices were delivered and read by the applicant on multiple dates.  The conduct of the assessee in seeking repeated adjournments without filing any information indicates a lack of interest in pursuing the matter.  Relying on the maxim "Vigilantibus Non Dormientibus Jura Subveniunt," the DR contended that the law assists the vigilant and not those who sleep over their rights. 7. We have heard the rival submissions and perused the records. While the CIT(E) was justified in his observations regarding the lack of cooperation during the assessment stage, we must consider the specific circumstances presented before us. 8. The Assessee has filed an affidavit shifting the burden of non-compliance onto the previous counsel. It is a settled legal principle that for a bonafide mistake or negligence of a professional representative, the litigant (the trust) should not be made to suffer. A charitable institution’s registration is a substantive matter that should ideally be decided on the merits of its objects and activities rather than on technical defaults or procedural laches. 9. In the interest of substantial justice, we believe the appellant deserves one final opportunity to substantiate its claim for registration.Accordingly, we set aside the order of the CIT(E) dated 22/10/2025 and remand the matter back to the file of the CIT(E), Chandigarh, for de novo adjudication with the following direction:

अपीलाथŎ/ The Appellant 2. ŮȑथŎ/ The Respondent 3. आयकरआयुƅ/ CIT 4. आयकर आयुƅ (अपील)/ The CIT(A) 5. िवभागीय Ůितिनिध, आयकर अपीलीय आिधकरण, चǷीगढ़/ DR, ITAT, CHANDIGARH 6. गाडŊ फाईल/ Guard File