Loading judgment…
Facts
The assessee's appeal was filed with a delay of 25 days, attributed to the previous counsel's unfamiliarity with ITAT procedures. The CIT(E) had rejected the assessee's application for registration under section 80G on grounds of non-registration under the Rajasthan Public Trust Act, 1959, and non-genuineness of activities.
Held
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal due to the circumstances explained. The Tribunal restored the matter to the file of the CIT(E) for fresh adjudication, allowing the assessee one more opportunity to submit necessary documents and present their case.
Key Issues
Whether the delay in filing the appeal can be condoned, and whether the CIT(E)'s rejection of 80G registration requires further examination based on new evidence.
Sections Cited
80G, 12AB, 10(23C), 12A
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, JAIPUR BENCHES,”B” JAIPUR
Before: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI, JM & SHRI GAGAN GOYAL, AM vk;dj vihy la-@ITA No. 470/JP/2025
ORDER PER: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI, J.M. This appeal filed by the assessee is directed against order of the ld. CIT(E), Jaipur dated 20-12-2024 raising therein following grounds of appeal. ‘’1The impugned order dated 20-12-2024 of the Act is bad in law and on facts of the case, for want of jurisdiction and various other reasons and hence, the same kindly be quashed.
2. The ld. CIT(E) erred in law as well as on the facts of the case in cancelling/ refusing the registration u/s 80G of the Act. The cancellation/ refusal of the registration by the ld CIT(E) is bad in law and on facts of the case and hence, the same may kindly be quashed.’’ 2.1 At the outset of hearing of the appeal, the Bench noticed that there is delay of 25 days in filing the appeal by the assessee for which the assessee filed an application for condonation of delay and apprised the Bench that his earlier counsel Shri Kailash Chand Mundra, CA was not familiar with the procedure for filing an appeal before the ITAT and he did not guide the assessee. Thus the delay took place in filing the appeal before ITAT. He submitted that the delay in filing of the instant appeal is not at all deliberate nor intentional but occurred due to circumstances beyond his control and negligent on the part of the earlier counsel. It is also pertinent to mention that earlier counsel Shri Kailash Chandra Moondra has filed his affidavit mainly deposing therein that he was unable to advise the assessee about their appellate remedy before the Hon’ble ITAT. 2.2 On the other hand, the ld. DR objected to such delay in filing the appeal by the assessee. However, she submitted that the Court may decide the issue as deemed fit and proper in the case. 2.3 We have heard both the parties and perused the materials available on record and from the submissions of the assessee, the Bench feels that the assessee was prevented with sufficient reason for not filling the appeal in time and therefore, we condone the delay considering the affidavit of the Shri Kailash Chandra Moondra, PRANTIYA SEWA BHARATI SAMITI CHITTORE VS CIT (E), JAIPUR (CA) earlier counsel and thus delay occurred due to omission on his part and not on the part of the assessee. Hence, the delay so made by the assessee in filing the appeal before us is condoned. 3.1 The Bench during the course of hearing noted that the Ground No. 1 of the assessee is general in nature which does not require any adjudication. 4.1 As regards the solitary ground No. 2 of appeal of the assessee, the Bench noted that the ld.CIT(E) rejected application of the assessee trust u/s 80G of the Act by observing as under:- ‘’02. Approval u/s 80G cannot be granted without registration u/s 12AB. 2.1 As per rule 11AA of the Income Tax Act, 1962, the registration u/s 12A/12AB or notification u/s 10(23C) is a precondition for granting approval u/s 80G of the I.T. Act, 1961. Vide this office order No. ITBA/EXM45/2024/1071427897(1) dated 20-12-2024 the applicant society / trust/ samiti has been denied registration u/s 12AB. Therefore, it is not eligible for exemption u/s 80G of the I.T.Act, 1961. Thus the claim of the applicant u/s 80G is liable to be rejected on this on following grounds:-
Non Registration under Rajasthan Public Trust Act, 1959. Non Genuineness of activities & Non compliance.
PRANTIYA SEWA BHARATI SAMITI CHITTORE VS CIT (E), JAIPUR In view of above discussion assessee’s claim of approval u/s 80G is liable to be rejected and thus being rejected on following grounds:-
Approval u/s 80G cannot be granted without registration u/s 12AB.
Further 2nd proviso to 80G(5) also state that if CIT is not has to pass order rejecting such application and also cancelling its earlier approval. Thus, it is clarified that applicant provisional approval under clause (iv) of first proviso to sub- section (5) of section 80G of the Income Tax Act. 1961 dated 22.02.2022 is also being cancelled. Further assessee has failed to give proper justification for regularization of provisional approval, thus with this order provisional approval is also lapsed and cancelled. ‘’ 4.2 During the course of hearing, the ld.AR of the assessee prayed that the assessee may be given one more opportunity to advance the documents before the ld.CIT(E) as raised in his order. 4.3 On the other hand, the ld. DR supported the order of the ld CIT(E). 4.4 We have heard both the parties and perused the materials available on record. In this case, it is noted that the ld. CIT(E) rejected the approval u/s 80G of the Act to the assessee Samiti on the ground of Non-Registration under Rajasthan PRANTIYA SEWA BHARATI SAMITI CHITTORE VS CIT (E), JAIPUR Public Trust Act, 1959 and Non-Genuineness of activities & non-compliance. In the course of hearing of the appeal, the ld.AR of the assessee submitted that the assessee Samiti has applied for registration of the Trust under Rajasthan Public Trust Act, 1959 before Devsthan Vibhag, and further submitted that the desired documents as to the genuineness of the activities will be produced before the ld.CIT(E) and thus he prayed to restore the matter to the file of the ld.CIT(E) for afresh adjudication of the case. In view of the request of the ld.AR of the assessee and in the interest of equity and justice, the Bench feels that the matter needs re- examination by the ld. CIT(E). Accordingly, the matter is restored to the file of the ld.CIT(E) to consider the above submissions of the assessee and allow the appeal of the assessee in accordance with law. The assessee is also directed to submit the necessary document before the ld. CIT(A) to settle the lis and the matter is restored to the file of the ld. CIT(E) to decide it afresh by providing one more opportunity of hearing. However, the assessee will not seek any adjournment on frivolous ground and remain cooperative during the course of proceedings. Thus the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes. 4.5 Before parting, we may make it clear that our decision to restore the matter back to the file of the ld. CIT(E) shall in no way be construed as having any PRANTIYA SEWA BHARATI SAMITI CHITTORE VS CIT (E), JAIPUR reflection or expression on the merits of the dispute, which shall be adjudicated by ld. CIT(E) independently in accordance with law. 5.0 In the result, the appeal of the assesee is allowed for statistical purposes Order pronounced in the open court on 08/09/2025. Sd/- Sd/- ¼ xxu Xkks;y ½ ¼MkWa-,l-lhrky{eh½ (GAGAN GOYAL) (Dr. S. Seethalakshmi) ys[kk lnL; @Accountant Member U;kf;dlnL;@Judicial Member Tk;iqj@Jaipur fnukad@Dated:- 08/09/2025 *Mishra आदेश की प्रतिलिपिअग्रेf’ात@ब्वचल वf जीम वतकमत वितूंतकमक जवरू The Appellant- Prantiya Sewa Bharati Samiti Chittore, Kota 1. 2. izR;FkhZ@ The Respondent- The CIT(E), Jaipur 3. vk;djvk;qDr@ The ld CIT 4. विभागीय प्रतिनिधि] आयकरअपीलीय अधिकरण] जयपुर@क्त्ए प्ज्Aज्ए Jंपचनत 5. xkMZQkbZy@ Guard File (ITA No. 407/JP/2025) vkns'kkuqlkj@ By order,
सहायकपंजीकार@Aेेजज. त्महपेजतंत