Loading judgment…
No AI summary yet for this case.
Detected automatically from the text. The count shows how many other judgments on BharatTax rely on the same authority.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, PUNE “B” BENCH, PUNE
Before: SHRI S. S. GODARA & SHRI G. D. PADMAHSHALI
ORDER PER G. D. PADMAHSHALI, AM; The present appeal challenges the order of rejection of Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemption)-Pune [for short “CIT(E)”] dt. 09/09/2020 passed u/s 12AA(1)(b)(ii) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 [for short “the Act”]
The grounds raised by the appellant in the present appeal as; ITAT-Pune Page 1 of 6
Shirur Shikshan Prasarak Mandal PAN: ABEFS44007J “1. Appellant contends that the non-response to the notices happened due to problems in communication at the appellant’s end and it is willing to make all the compliance. The appellant contends that it is eligible for registration u/s 12AA of the ITA, 1961 considering the charitable nature of the activities.
2. The appellant craves leave to add, alter, clarify, explain, modify, delete any of the grounds of appeal.”
Facts of the case borne out of the records are; 3.1 The appellant assessee is Charitable Trust formed in 1946 and registered under the provisions of Bombay Public Trust Act, 1950 [for short “BPTA”] on 26/09/1952, which is engaged in educational activities by running various schools / colleges in and around Shirur of Pune district and also holding 12A registration alongwith 80G entitlement for past many years.
3.2 On 30/11/2019 the appellant made an application u/s 12AA for issue of fresh registration u/s 12A, wherein the Ld. CIT(E) requested for certain information vis-à-vis clarification on multiple ITAT-Pune Page 2 of 6
Shirur Shikshan Prasarak Mandal PAN: ABEFS44007J occasions which were remained unattended by the appellant, hence in the absence of required information, documentation, undertaking, declaration u/s 13(1)(c) of the Act, and NOC etc., Ld. CIT(E) was constrained to conclude the activities of the appellant otherwise in tune with the provisions of section 2(15), consequentially the application of the appellant by well speaking order is rejected.
3.3 Aggrieved therewith, the appellant knocked the doors of appellate Tribunal on the grounds paraphrased at 2 herein before.
On this date of physical hearing, at the outset, the learned representative for the appellant [for short “AR”] adverting the Affidavit and the petition filed for condonation of delay brought to the notice of the bench that, present appeal is delayed by 560 days (approx.) for stated dual reasons viz; change in office bearers and demise of the erstwhile representative counsel. It is also submitted that the delay in filing the present appeal was unintentional and hence prayed for condonation. In ITAT-Pune Page 3 of 6
Shirur Shikshan Prasarak Mandal PAN: ABEFS44007J so far as the merits of the case is concerned, the Ld. AR adverting to the same affidavit submitted that, the requirements sought by the Ld. CIT(E) during the proceedings of 12A registration were addressed to the erstwhile demised counsel which could not be communicated and hence remained unattended, therefore following the principle of natural justice one more opportunity to the appellant of being heard is prayed by a request for reminding the file back to Ld. CIT(E). The learned departmental representative [for short “DR”] candidly expressed no objection to the request.
After hearing to the rival contentions of both the parties; and subject to the provisions of rule 18 of Income Tax Appellate Tribunal Rules, 1963 [for short “ITAT, Rules”] perused the material placed on records till the date of conclusive hearing and duly considered the facts of the case in the light of settled legal position and case laws relied upon by the appellant as well the respondent.
Considering the affidavit in the light of provisions of provisions of section 3(1)(a) of The Taxation and Other ITAT-Pune Page 4 of 6
Shirur Shikshan Prasarak Mandal PAN: ABEFS44007J Laws (Relaxation and Amendment of Certain Provision) Act, 2020 & notification dt. 31/12/2020 also r.w. suo-moto order of Hon’ble Supreme Court on limitation (MA-21/2022), the substantial period of delay in instituting the present appeal is covered by the relaxation and the balance delay in the light of dual reasons appears to be sufficient, genuine unintended and hence deserves condonation, therefore we ad idem, in the light of decision of Hon’ble Apex Court in “Collector Land Acquisition Vs MST Katiji and Others” reported at 167 ITR 5 (SC) and Hon’ble Bombay High Court in “CIT Vs Velingkar Brothers” reported at 289 ITR 382 (Bom), condoned the delay in instituting the present appeal.
In so far as the merits of the case is concerned, it is uncloudly transpires from the records that, the appellant trust could not be represented before the Ld. CIT(E) in securing the registration u/s 12A of the Act for the genuine and sufficient reasons, hence keeping in mind the activities carried out by the appellant since its registration under BPTA and the history of holding 12A as well 80G entitlements by the assessee trust, we are of the ITAT-Pune Page 5 of 6
Shirur Shikshan Prasarak Mandal PAN: ABEFS44007J considered view that, the appellant deserves one more opportunity of being heard, ergo we restore the file to the Ld. CIT(E) with a direction to considered the application for registration de-nova by according sufficient and reasonable opportunity to the appellant to adduce necessary and requisite information, documents, undertaking and declaration etc. as deem necessary under the provisions of the Act. Needless to state that, the appellant shall invariably comply with the direction of Ld. CIT(E) in adjudicating the application, without seeking any unreasoned adjournment.