Loading judgment…
Facts
The assessee challenged a composite order by the CIT(E) rejecting applications for registration u/s 12AB and approval u/s 80G(5). The assessee had filed two appeals, one within the time limit and the other with a delay of 262 days due to filing a single appeal initially against the composite order.
Held
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the second appeal, finding a sufficient cause and no negligence or mala fide intention. The matters were remanded back to the CIT(E) for fresh adjudication, directing the CIT(E) to provide an opportunity of hearing to the assessee.
Key Issues
Whether the delay in filing the appeal should be condoned, and if the matter should be remanded for fresh adjudication by the CIT(E) after the assessee failed to submit complete documents.
Sections Cited
12AB, 80G(5)
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, INDORE BENCH, INDORE
Before: SHRI B.M. BIYANI & SHRI PARESH M. JOSHI
आदेश/ O R D E R
Per B.M. Biyani, A.M.:
The captioned two (2) appeals, first being relating to registration u/s 12AB and second being relating to approval u/s 80G(5), have been preferred by assessee challenging a composite order bearing DIN: ITBA/EXM/F/EXM45/2024- 25/1071655831(1) dated 28.12.2024 passed by learned Commissioner of Income-Tax (Exemption), Bhopal [“CIT(E)”], by which the assessee’s applications for grant of final registration u/s 12AB & final approval u/s Page 1 of 4
Lilawati Welfare Society & 1014/Ind/2025 80G(5) of Income-tax Act, 1961 [“the act”] have been rejected and also the provisional registration u/s 12AB and provisional approval u/s 80G(5) granted earlier have been cancelled. The assessee has raised the grounds as mentioned in respective Appeal Memos (Form No. 36). relating to registration u/s 12AB has been filed within statutory time-limit but there is a delay of 262 days in filing second relating to approval u/s 80G(5). Ld. AR for assessee submitted that ordinarily the CIT(E) is passing two separate orders for these two matters relating to section 12AB & 80G(5) but in present case, the Ld. CIT(E) has passed one composite order. Therefore, the assessee filed only first appeal. However, later when it came to the knowledge of assessee that even if a composite order has been passed by CIT(E), it would be necessary and prudent for assessee to file two separate appeals for these two matters of section 12AB & 80G(5). Hence, the assessee subsequently filed second appeal relating to approval u/s 80G(5) after a delay. Ld. AR submitted that the assessee has filed an application/affidavit for condonation of delay explaining these facts and accordingly prays for condonation of delay. These facts were deliberated during hearing and on a careful consideration, we are satisfied that there exists a “sufficient cause” for occurrence of delay. We find that there is no lethargy, negligence, mala fide intention or ulterior motive of assessee in making delay and the assessee does not stand to derive any benefit because of delay. In view of the settled legal position laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Collector, Page 2 of 4 Lilawati Welfare Society & 1014/Ind/2025 Land Acquisition Vs Mst. Katiji and others 1987 AIR 1353, 1987 2 SCC 387, wherein it has been held that the “technical considerations” should not prevail over the cause of “substantial justice”, we deem it fit to condone the delay. Accordingly, the delay in filing second appeal being is condoned and the appeal is taken for hearing.
Ld. AR next carried us to the impugned composite order and demonstrated that the CIT(E) has rejected assessee’s applications on the footing that the assessee has not submitted complete information/ documents as called by him. Ld. AR drew us to Pages 17 to 121 of Paper- Book where an e-filing acknowledgement dated 23.10.2024 downloaded from Income-tax Portal alongwith copies of all documents referred therein and e-filed to CIT(E), are placed. By referring to these papers, Ld. AR demonstrated that the assessee made a vehement submission to CIT(E). Ld. AR submitted that in the said reply, the assessee has made best of its effort to file the details/documents required by CIT(E). And the assessee is still ready to submit any other detail/document required by CIT(E). Therefore, in the interest of justice, one more opportunity may be given to assessee to enable the submission.
Ld. DR for revenue agrees with the prayer of Ld. AR but makes a request to direct the assessee to represent its case before CIT(E) and do not seek unnecessary adjournments.
Lilawati Welfare Society & 1014/Ind/2025
Considering above submissions of parties and having regard to the principle of natural justice, we remand both of these matters back to the file of CIT(E) for adjudication afresh. The CIT(E) shall give necessary opportunity of hearing to assessee and pass appropriate order(s). The assessee is also directed to remain vigilant and ensure participation in the hearings as may be fixed by CIT(E) and do not seek unnecessary adjournments failing which the CIT(E) shall be at liberty to pass appropriate order(s0 in accordance with law. Ordered accordingly.
Resultantly, these appeals are allowed for statistical purpose.