Loading judgment…
Facts
The appellant challenged the rejection of their applications for registration under Section 12AB and approval under Section 80G(5)(iii) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The applications were rejected by the CIT(E) for non-compliance with notices, incomplete documentation, and lack of registration under the Rajasthan Public Trust Act, 1959. The appeals were filed with a significant delay.
Held
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeals, citing that the applicant's representative received improper legal advice and the delay was also due to the applicant not pursuing the matter diligently. The impugned orders were set aside, and the applications were restored to the CIT(E) for fresh decision, with an opportunity for the applicant to provide the required documents.
Key Issues
Whether the delay in filing the appeals for rejection of applications under Section 12AB and 80G should be condoned due to improper legal advice and lack of diligence, and whether the matter should be remanded for fresh consideration by the CIT(E).
Sections Cited
12AB, 80G(5)(iii), 147, 148, 143(3)
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, JAIPUR BENCHES,”A-Bench” JAIPUR
Before: SHRI GAGAN GOYAL, AM & SHRI NARINDER KUMAR, JM
vkns'k@ORDER PER: NARINDER KUMAR, JUDICIAL MEMBER .
This common order is to dispose of the above captioned 2 appeals as these are interconnected and arise out of the same facts. 2. By way of second mentioned appeal, the appellant has challenged order dated 17.04.2024, passed by Learned CIT(E), Jaipur whereby its application submitted for its registration u/s 12AB of Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short “the Act”), came to be rejected on the following three grounds:-
& 261/JPR/2025 Shree Gopal Gaushala Samiti, Sikar. Incomplete Form 10AB & non submission of deed. Rajasthan Public Trust Act, 1959. Genuineness of activities.
By way of first mentioned appeal, the appellant has challenged order dated 17.02.2024, whereby separate application submitted by the applicant before Learned CIT(E) seeking approval u/s 80G(5)(iii) of the Act, has been rejected, as a consequence of the rejection of the application u/s 12AB of the Act, and regarding commencement of activities.
It may be mentioned here that as per deficiency note made by the Registry, both the appeals came to be filed after a delay of 300 days. The appellant has also filed separate application seeking condonation of delay in respect of each appeal. With the applications, affidavit of Shri Hari Singh, Secretary of the applicant Samiti has also been filed.
Arguments heard. File perused. Contentions 6. Ld. AR for the applicant Samiti has submitted that one of the grounds for rejection of the application u/s 12AB of the Act is that the applicant Samiti did not get itself registered under RPT Act, 1959. Further, it has been submitted that on receipt of the impugned order on the e-mail of the counsel engaged by the applicant Samiti was & 261/JPR/2025 Shree Gopal Gaushala Samiti, Sikar. consulted; that the said counsel advised the representative of the applicant Samiti that first of all registration under RPT Act is required to be obtained which would form basis of fresh applications seeking its registration u/s 12AB and for approval under section 80G or the matter may be got restored there, by filing of applications for rectification of the orders; that subsequently when the representative of the applicant consulted another counsel at Jaipur, he advised that appeal was to be presented so as to challenge each order i.e. u/s 12AB and 80G of the Act. Ld. AR for the applicant Samiti has submitted that when the representative of the applicant Samiti was not given proper legal advice, as regards the correct remedy in respect of the two applications rejected by Learned CIT(E), delay in filing of the appeals may be condoned, as even otherwise, on merits, he intends to make prayer for restoration of the two applications already dismissed for their fresh decision by Learned CIT(E).
Ld. DR for the department has contended that the above said ground put forth by Ld. AR for the applicant does not establish that there was any “sufficient cause” for condonation of delay. At the same time, Ld. DR for the department has submitted that keeping in view non compliance on the part of the applicant Samiti before Learned CIT(E), as finds mentioned in the impugned order, and since & 261/JPR/2025 Shree Gopal Gaushala Samiti, Sikar. prayer is sought to be made by Learned AR before this Appellate Tribunal that the matter be remitted to Learned CIT(E), he leaves it to the discretion of the Appellate Tribunal to pass appropriate orders on the applications seeking condonation of delay. Discussion 8. As noticed above, delay is stated to have occurred because representative of the applicant Samiti in his bonafide acted upon the advice of the counsel earlier engaged by the Samiti to pursue the proceedings before Learned CIT(E). Case of the applicant is that the two appeals were filed only when proper legal advice was rendered by another counsel contacted by the representative of the applicant at Jaipur.
In the given facts and circumstances, no doubt, the applicant should have filed affidavit of the counsel earlier engaged for pursuing the two applications presented before Learned CIT(E), but, no such affidavit has been filed for the reasons best known to the applicant’s representative or Learned AR.
A perusal of the impugned order would reveal that Learned CIT(E) issued notices dated 19.12.2023, 15.01.2024 & 02.02.2024, but the representative of the applicant did not produce details/documents before & 261/JPR/2025 Shree Gopal Gaushala Samiti, Sikar. Learned CIT(E). So much so, the representative of the applicant failed to furnish even copy of the deed, vide which the applicant Samiti came to be incorporated. Even no certificate of registration under RPT Act was produced before Learned CIT(E), what to say of production of various other documents asked for, in connection with genuineness of its activities, as per notices issued in the prescribed format.
Ld. AR for the appellant admits non production of various documents and details by representative of the applicant before Learned CIT(E), but submits that since the two applications were not properly pursued before Learned CIT(E), he would request for an opportunity to applicant to comply with all directions issued by Learned CIT(E) so that ultimately the applicant Samiti gets itself registered u/s 12AB and also gets approval 80G(5)(iii) of the Act, in order to achieve its aims for which the Samiti came to be constituted and incorporated.
Having gone through the impugned order, we find that three notices were issued to the applicant but the representative of the applicant Samiti did not comply with the directions. Keeping in view that Ld. AR for the applicant Samiti has requested for an opportunity to comply with all the directions issued by Learned CIT(E)
& 261/JPR/2025 Shree Gopal Gaushala Samiti, Sikar. so as to make available all the documents/details, we deem it a fit case to condone the delay in filing of the appeals. Even otherwise, for the above said reasons, the applicant Samiti cannot be made to suffer, when its representative was not provided proper legal advice as regards the remedy to challenge the impugned orders.
Taking into consideration that the Secretary of the applicant Samiti did not pursue the matter diligently even in timely contacting the other counsel for better legal advice, as regards the remedy, and simply allowed the time to lapse, which has led to delay in filing of the appeals, delay in filing of the appeal is condoned and both the appeals are admitted. The applicant Samiti is burdened with costs of Rs. 3000/- i.e. Rs. 1500/-per appeal to be deposited in Prime Minister’s Relief Fund.
In view of the above discussion, as regards non availing of opportunities provided by Learned CIT(E), to produce all the relevant documents and other details, we deem it a fit case to restore both applications u/s 12AB and 80G(5)(iii) of the Act to the files of Learned CIT(E) for their decision afresh, while providing an opportunity to the applicant to comply with directions as regards the documents/details required for the purpose of effective adjudication of the two applications.