Loading judgment…
No AI summary yet for this case.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, LUCKNOW BENCH “A”, LUCKNOW
Before: SHRI KUL BHARAT & SHRI ANADEE NATH MISSHRA
PER KUL BHARAT, VICE PRESIDENT.:
These two appeals by the assessee against two different orders of the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemption) [“Ld. CIT(E)”, for short], Lucknow each dated 22.10.2024. For the sake of convenience, both the appeals were heard together and are being disposed of by way of consolidated order.
2. First, we take up the pertaining to the A.Y. 2025-26. The assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal: -
“1. Non-Compliance Due to Genuine Reasons: The appellant submits that the non-compliance with the notices issued by the Department was unintentional and arose due to the continuous travel engagements of the President/Founder, Mr. Kailash Chand Sharma, who is a narrator (Kathavachak) and was occupied in conducting various charitable programs across India. The appellant prays that this genuine reason be considered and an opportunity be provided to present the required details.
& 245/LKW/2025 Page 2 of 7 2. Genuineness of Activities: The appellant submits that the trust is actively engaged in charitable activities and has consistently conducted programs for the benefit of society. The charitable nature and genuineness of the trust’s activities are well-established and duly supported by facts and records.”
The present appeal is barred by limitation for 87 days. The assessee has filed an application seeking condonation of delay in filing of this appeal. The explanation furnished by the Ld. Counsel for the assessee is poorly drafted, although an affidavit has been filed in support of the contention. As per the affidavit, it has been stated that the founder of the trust was not available as he was engaged in a religious discourse. The Ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted that the delay was caused for bona fide reasons. He further contended that even before the Ld. CIT(E), no effective representation could be made due to the unavailability of the founder of the trust, who is in control of the affairs of the trust.
On the other hand, the Ld. Departmental Representative for the Revenue opposed the submissions and supported the order of the Ld. CIT(E).
Heard the Ld. Representatives of the parties, during the course of hearing, the Ld. Counsel for the assessee contended that an opportunity may be granted and the matter may be restored to the file of the Ld. CIT(E). He further submitted that the assessee would take all necessary steps to represent its case and would fully co-operate in the proceedings before the Ld. CIT(E). Looking to the facts and circumstances of the present case, we deem it fit and proper, in the interest of natural justice, to condone the delay and admit the appeal for hearing on merits.
& 245/LKW/2025 Page 3 of 7 6. The facts in brief are that the assessee had filed an application dated 11.04.2024 for registration u/s 12A(1)(ac)(vi) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (“Act”, for short) along with in Form no. 10AB. The said application had been dismissed by the Ld. CIT(E) on the basis of non-compliance of notices by the assessee. During the course of proceedings, the Ld. CIT(E) had given various opportunity to the assessee but the assessee did not comply with the notices issued by the Ld. CIT(E). Therefore, the application of the assessee was rejected. Aggrieved against this, the assessee is in appeal before this Tribunal.
Apropos to the grounds of appeal, the Ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted that the founder of the trust was on a religious tour across the country. Therefore, the notices issued by the Ld. CIT(E) could not be responded to. It is further contended that the assessee would ensure due compliance and would file the requisite details before the Ld. CIT(E). It was prayed that in the interest of justice an opportunity for representing its case before Ld. CIT(E) may be granted.
8. On the other hand, the Ld. Departmental Representative for the Revenue opposed the submissions, supported the orders of the lower authorities, and contended that the assessee had been thoroughly negligent in pursuing its case. He further contended that the assessee failed to furnish the necessary details as called for by the Ld. CIT(E). Therefore, in the absence of the requisite details, the Ld. CIT(E) was justified for rejecting the application.
Heard the Ld. Representatives of the parties and perused the materials available on records. Undisputedly, the Ld. CIT(E)
& 245/LKW/2025 Page 4 of 7 had provided several opportunities to the assessee; however, the assessee failed to comply with the notices issued by the Ld. CIT(E). It is contended on behalf of the assessee that the founder of the trust, who is in control of its affairs, was unavailable as he was on a religious tour to various places across the country. Considering the totality of facts and in the interest of natural justice, we deem it proper under the facts of the present case to set aside the impugned order and to sub-serve the principles of natural justice grant an opportunity to represent its case before the Ld. CIT(E). Therefore, impugned order passed by the Ld. CIT(E) is hereby set aside and the application seeking registration u/s 12A of the Act is restored to the file of the Ld. CIT(E) for decision afresh. The assessee is hereby directed to furnish the evidences in support of its activities before the Ld. CIT(E). The grounds raised in this appeal are allowed for statistical purposes.
“1. Non-Compliance Due to Genuine Reasons: The appellant submits that the non-compliance with the notices issued by the Department was unintentional and arose due to the continuous travel engagements of the President/Founder, Mr. Kailash Chand Sharma, who is a narrator (Kathavachak) and was occupied in conducting various charitable programs across India. The appellant prays that this genuine reason be considered and an opportunity be provided to present the required details.
Genuineness of Activities: The appellant submits that the trust is actively engaged in charitable activities and has consistently conducted programs for the benefit of society. The charitable nature and genuineness of the trust’s activities are well-established and duly supported by facts and records.”
The present appeal is barred by limitation for 87 days. The assessee has filed an application seeking condonation of delay in filing of this appeal. The explanation furnished by the Ld. & 245/LKW/2025 Page 5 of 7 Counsel for the assessee is poorly drafted, although an affidavit has been filed in support of the contention. As per the affidavit, it has been stated that the founder of the trust was not available as he was engaged in a religious discourse. The Ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted that the delay was caused for bona fide reasons. He further contended that even before the Ld. CIT(E), no effective representation could be made due to the unavailability of the founder of the trust, who is in control of the affairs of the trust.
The facts giving rise to the present appeal are that the assessee is a trust had filed an application for registration u/s 80G(5)(iv) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (“the Act”, for short) on 11.04.2024 along with in Form No. 10AB under Rule 17A of the Income Tax Rules, 1962 (“the Rules”, for short). The said application has been dismissed by the Ld. CIT(E) on the basis that he was not satisfied about the nature of activity being carried out by the assessee. Therefore, the application of the assessee was rejected. Aggrieved against this, the assessee is in appeal before this Tribunal.
Apropos to the grounds of appeal, Ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted that the founder of the trust was on a tour for religious discourse across the country. He contended that the founder of the trust, who is in control of its affairs, was unavailable as he was on a religious tour to various places across the country, and therefore was unable to comply with the notices issued by the Ld. CIT(E). Therefore, he prayed that the order of the Ld. CIT(E) may be set aside and the Ld. CIT(E) be directed to grant registration u/s 80G(5)(iv) of the Act.
& 245/LKW/2025 Page 6 of 7 14. On the other hand, the Ld. CIT-DR opposed the submissions and supported the order of lower authorities and submitted that there is no infirmity in the order of the Ld. CIT(E).
We have heard rival submissions and perused the material available on record. The Ld. CIT(E) rejected the application for registration u/s 80G(5)(iv) of the Act, inter alia, by observing as under: -
“ 16. Considering the facts that the assessee was not afforded adequate opportunity, to represent its case effectively. Therefore, to sub-serve the principles of natural justice, we hereby set aside the impugned order and restore the application for registration u/s 80G(5)(iv) of the Act to the file of the Ld. CIT(E) to decide the same afresh after affording adequate opportunity of being heard to the assessee. The assessee is hereby directed to co-operate in the proceedings and furnish the requisite evidence in support of its activities. The grounds raised in this appeal are allowed for statistical purposes.
Order pronounced in the open Court on 26/11/2025.