Loading judgment…
Facts
The assessee, Shri Dev Narayan Mandir Trust, appealed against the CIT(E)'s order rejecting its registration application under Section 12AB. The appeal was filed with a significant delay of 529 days, and the assessee sought condonation of this delay.
Held
The Tribunal held that the assessee's explanation for the delay, attributing it to the ignorance of trustees regarding email communication and non-cooperation amongst them, does not constitute a reasonable cause. Citing judicial precedents, the Tribunal stated that such negligence cannot be a valid ground for condoning inordinate delay.
Key Issues
Whether the delay in filing the appeal, attributed to the trustees' lack of email knowledge and internal communication issues, is a sufficient cause for condonation under Section 5 of the Limitation Act.
Sections Cited
12AB, 147, 148, 143(3), 5
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Detected automatically from the text. The count shows how many other judgments on BharatTax rely on the same authority.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, JAIPUR BENCH “B”, JAIPUR
Before: Dr. S. SEETHALAKSHMI & SHRI GAGAN GOYALShri Dev Narayan Mandir Trust Jodhpuriya,
This appeal by the assessee is directed against the order of the Ld. CIT(E), Jaipur dated 22.09.2023 passed u/s. 12AB of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short ‘the Act’). The assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal:
1. on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, Ld. CIT (Exemption) has grossly erred in rejecting the final registration application on the ground of incomplete filing of form 10AB. Such denial of registration is invalid in law and facts hence deserve to be quashed.
2. on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT (Exemption) has further erred in rejecting the registration application on the ground of Non-Genuineness of Activities. However, the activities of the trust are completely genuine and explainable. Therefore, the denial of registration on this basis is completely irrational, illogical and against the principle of natural justice, hence deserves to be rolled back.
3. on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT (Exemption) has erred in rejecting the final registration on the ground that that the trust derives rental income from property and doing business. Such ground for denial of registration is unlawful as well as incorrect hence deserves to be set aside.
4. on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, Id. CIT (Exemption) has grossly erred in rejecting the final registration application filed u/s. 12AB of the Income Tax Act, 1961. Therefore, denial of registration on this ground is invalid in law hence deserves to be quashed.
5. That the appellant reserves the right to add/ alter/ modify/ deleted any or all grounds at any time before the hearing.
In this matter, before we decide the matter, we need to deal with the issue of delay in filing the appeal. As there is a delay of 529 days, an application filed by the assessee-trust seeking condonation of delay in filing the appeal against the order passed by the Ld. CIT(E) dated 22.09.2023 rejecting registration under section 12AB of the Income Tax Act, 1961.
2. The assessee has explained the delay on the ground that the initial notices were sent on the email ID of one of the trustees, namely, Shri Phoolchand Langdi, who claims that he was not conversant with the use of e-mail and electronic communication, and therefore, remained unaware of such notices. Further, it is stated that subsequent notices were sent on the e-mail ID of another trustee, Shri Suresh Chand Gurjar, who allegedly failed to communicate the same to the trust. On these grounds, it has been prayed that the delay deserves to be condoned.
We have carefully considered the submissions made in the condonation petition. It is an undisputed fact that the assessee-trust itself provided the e-mail IDs to the Department for the purpose of statutory communication. Once an e-mail ID is furnished, it is incumbent upon the assessee to ensure that the same is regularly operated and monitored by a person competent to handle such electronic correspondence. Simply taking a plea that one trustee was not conversant with e-mail operations or that another trustee did not communicate the notices cannot constitute a reasonable cause for condonation of delay and that is too such an abnormal delay of 529 days.
If such a plea is accepted as a valid ground, then every assessee can conveniently avoid compliance by asserting lack of technical knowledge or non-cooperation amongst trustees. Such an interpretation would defeat the very object of e- proceedings and statutory communications through e-mail, which have now become the new norm under the Income-tax law.
5. It is the bounden duty of the trust, being a juristic entity, to nominate an authorized person competent to handle e-mail communication, once the e-mail ID is registered with the Department. Any lapse or negligence on the part of trustees in ensuring proper monitoring of electronic communication cannot be treated as a sufficient cause within the meaning of law so as to condone inordinate delay in filing the appeal.
We have carefully considered the submissions made in the condonation petition. It is an undisputed fact that the assessee-trust itself furnished the said e-mail IDs to the Department for the purposes of statutory communication. Once an e-mail ID is registered, it is incumbent upon the assessee, being a juristic entity, to ensure that the same is regularly monitored by a competent person. Taking a plea that one trustee was not conversant with e-mail operations or that another trustee did not communicate the notices does not constitute a reasonable cause for condonation of delay.
At this stage, reference may be made to certain judicial precedents where the Hon’ble Supreme Court has categorically held that inordinate delay, unsupported by sufficient cause, cannot be condoned:
In Mani Mandir Sewa Nyas Samiti Ramghat Ayodhya v. CIT [2020] 119 taxmann.com 383 (SC), where delay of 1744 days was sought to be explained on the ground of the illness and subsequent death of the manager, the Hon’ble Court held that there was no material to substantiate the plea, and that it was otherwise the duty of the assessee to safeguard its legal remedies. The delay was not condoned.
In Siva Industries and Holdings Ltd. v. CIT [2023] 157 taxmann.com 416 (SC), the Hon’ble Court rejected condonation where the delay
was found attributable to negligence rather than any genuine hardship or unavoidable circumstance.
3. In Puneet Rastogi v. CIT [2023] 148 taxmann.com 363 (SC), the Hon’ble Supreme Court affirmed the rejection of condonation of delay where no genuine hardship or reasonable cause was demonstrated.
4. In C.I. Builders (P.) Ltd. v. CIT [2025] 178 taxmann.com 257 (SC), it was reiterated that mistake of counsel is not per se a sufficient ground for condonation; every case must be assessed on its facts, and in the absence of justifiable reasons, the delay cannot be condoned.
Further, in Vedabai alias Vaijayanatabai Baburao Patil v. Shantaram Baburao Patil [2002] 122 Taxman 114 (SC), the Hon’ble Supreme Court laid down that in exercising discretion under section 5 of the Limitation Act, Courts should adopt a pragmatic approach. A distinction must be made between cases where the delay is inordinate and cases where the delay is only of a few days. In the former, the consideration of prejudice to the opposite party becomes relevant and a more cautious approach is required.
The principle that emerges from the aforesaid precedents is that while Courts may adopt a liberal approach in cases involving short delays coupled with genuine hardship, in cases of inordinate delay without sufficient cause, the approach must necessarily be cautious and strict.
In the present case, the delay in filing the appeal is of 579 days. This is clearly an inordinate delay, and no material has been placed on record to demonstrate that the cause shown was bona fide or beyond the control of the assessee. On the contrary, the explanation advanced is based on internal negligence of trustees, which cannot be recognized as a valid ground under law.
Accordingly, in view of the facts and circumstances and in light of the settled judicial position, we find no justification to condone the delay.
The application seeking condonation of delay is rejected. Consequently, the appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed as being time-barred.
In view of the above facts and circumstances, we find no justification to condone the delay. Accordingly, the application seeking condonation of delay is rejected. Consequently, the appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed being time-barred.
In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed with above directions.
The Order is pronounced in the open court on 15th Day of September 2025.