GREEN MINDED FOOUNDATION,BAWDI BERA vs. ITO WARD 4(1), JAIPUR

As per deficiency note made by the Registry of this Appellate Tribunal, the appeal is barred by limitation, same having been filed 43 days after the prescribed period. On 13.08.2025, appellant-applicant has submitted an application seeking condonation of delay. Alongwith the application is an affidavit of Shri Narendra Singh Gehlot, who has testified the same as a director of the appellant-applicant. Surprisingly, as per para 1 of the affidavit, the deponent is the proprietor of the “appellant firm”.

Ld. AR for the appellant-applicant has submitted that as per impugned order, three notices were issued to the applicant-appellant, but same were received on the registered email ID of the AR for the applicant, through whom the application was submitted online. Ld. AR has further submitted that it is due to non communication of the information by said AR, that none of the three notices could be responded. Accordingly, the only prayer made by Ld. AR for the appellant Green Minded Foundation, Jodhpur is that while condoning the delay in filing of the appeal, the matter may be restored to the files of Learned CIT(E) so as to enable the appellant to appear there for being heard on the application.

Admittedly, Ld. AR for the applicant has not provided email ID that was got registered with the department. In absence thereof, it cannot be said that three notices dated 02.09.2024, 08.10.2024 and 28.10.2024 issued by the office of Learned CIT(E), were delivered on the email ID of the authorized representative of the applicant, through whom the application u/s 12A(1)(ac)(iii) of the Act is stated to have been submitted. But, taking into consideration that even Ld. DR for the department has no objection to the condonation of the short delay in filing of the appeal, and also to the restoration of the application u/s 12A(1)(ac)(iii) of the Act, to the files of Learned CIT(E). we allow the prayer for condonation of delay in filing of the appeal.

As noticed above, three notices were issued by the office of Learned CIT(E) for compliance, but none of the notices was complied with. In the situation, Learned CIT(E) had no objection, but to proceed further.

As regards the first ground of rejection of the application, in para 2.2. of the impugned order, Learned CIT(E) has observed as to on which aspect, the application submitted online was incomplete.

As noticed above, the only prayer made by Ld. AR for the applicant- appellant is for referring the matter back on the ground that the authorized representative of the applicant, who was to pursue the application before Learned CIT(E), did not apprise the representative of the applicant about said notices. In this regard, affidavit of the authorized representative of the applicant, who was to pursue the application before Learned CIT(E), should have been submitted. The fact remains that three notices were issued by Learned CIT(E) but same were not complied with. However, taking into consideration the issues involved in the application u/s 12A(1)(ac)(iii) of the Act vide which the applicant sought its registration, but which prayer came to be rejected due to non compliance of notices, we deem it a fit case to restore the application to the files of Learned CIT(E), as not opposed by Ld. DR for the department.