WOMEN CHILDREN WELFARE AND RURAL DEVELOPMENT SOCIETY,AJMER vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (EXEMPTION), JAIPUR

As per deficiency note raised by the Registry, present appeal came to be presented on 147 days after the prescribed period of limitation.

To seek condonation of delay in filing of the appeal, applicant society has submitted an application. So, firstly, arguments have been advanced on the application seeking condonation of delay.

It may be mentioned here that another order of the same date i.e. 19.12.2024 was also passed by Learned CIT(E), rejecting another application of the applicant society presented for registration u/s 12AB of the Act. On appeal, this Appellate Tribunal has already restored said application to the files of Learned CIT(E) for decision afresh. Ld. AR for the applicant has submitted that copy of impugned order dated 19.12.2024 was received on the very next day i.e. 20.12.2024, but no appeal challenging the impugned order could be filed, while challenging another order of the same date i.e. 19.12.2024, passed by Learned CIT(E), Women Children Welfare and Rural Development Society, Ajmer. rejecting another application of the applicant society presented for registration u/s 12AB of the Act.

Admittedly, the applicant society had submitted two separate applications before Learned CIT(E) i.e. one seeking registration u/s 12AB of the Act, and the other application seeking approval u/s 80G(5)(iii) of the Act. No doubt, both applications came to be rejected by Learned CIT(E) on 19.12.2024, it appears that due to bonafide mistake, no separate appeal challenging order u/s 80G(5)(iii) of the Act could be filed before this Appellate Tribunal. We believe the Ld. AR for the applicant, when he has tried to explain that he was under the impression that both the orders could be challenged by one of appeal has both the orders were of the same date. He has also drawn our attention to copy of order dated 23.07.2025, passed by this Appellate Tribunal in whereby application u/s 12A(1)(ac)(iii) of the Act was restored to the files of Learned CIT(E) for decision afresh, affording reasonable opportunity of being heard to the applicant society, of course in accordance with law. Except the bonafide mistake on the part of the AR of the appellant, we do not see any other reason for not challenging the impugned order by filing another appeal within the prescribed period of limitation.

It is not in dispute that the other application U/s 12A(1)(ac)(iii) of the Act stands restored to the files of Learned CIT(E), for decision afresh. Application u/s 80G(5)(iii) of the Act, which has given rise to present appeal, came to be rejected on the sole ground that the applicant society was without registration u/s 12AB of the Act. With the restoration of the other application u/s 12AB of the Act, application u/s 80G(5)(iii) of the Act also deserves to be restored to its original number for decision afresh. Result 7. In view of the above discussion, this appeal is disposed of, for statistical purposes and, while setting aside the impugned order, the application filed by the applicant society u/s 80G(5)(iii) of the Act is restored to its original number. Learned CIT(E) to dispose of the application afresh in accordance with law, after providing reasonable opportunity of being heard to the applicant society. It may be mentioned here that on behalf of the applicant, an application seeking production of additional evidence came to be filed on 03.09.2025 before the Registry.