Loading judgment…
Facts
The appeals arose from the rejection of the appellant's applications for registration under Section 12AB and approval under Section 80G(5)(iii) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 by the CIT(E). The rejections were due to incomplete documentation, non-submission of deeds, and issues with the genuineness of activities.
Held
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeals, citing improper legal advice given to the appellant's representative. The Tribunal restored both applications to the CIT(E) for fresh adjudication, granting the appellant an opportunity to comply with all directions and submit necessary documents.
Key Issues
Whether the delay in filing the appeals should be condoned due to improper legal advice, and whether the applications for registration and approval should be restored to the CIT(E) for fresh consideration.
Sections Cited
12AB, 80G(5)(iii), 80G(5), 1961
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 first mentioned appeal, the appellant has challenged order dated 08.02.2024, 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:-
& 273/JPR/2025 Shri Poddar Sewa Samiti vs. CIT(E) Incomplete Form 10AB & non submission of deed. Rajasthan Public Trust Act, 1959. Genuineness of activities.
By way of second mentioned appeal, the appellant has challenged order dated 08.02.2024, 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 two additional grounds i.e. regarding commencement of activities and non eligibility of religious trust u/s 80G(5) of the Act.
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 Mohan Lal Poddar, President 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 & 273/JPR/2025 Shri Poddar Sewa Samiti vs. CIT(E) counsel engaged by the applicant Samiti was consulted; that the said counsel advised the President of the applicant Samiti that first of all registration under RPT Act is required to be obtained which would dform basis of fresh applications seeking its registration u/s 12AB and approval under section 80G or the matter may be got restored there, by filing of application for rectification of the order; that subsequently when the representation of the applicant consulted another counsel at Jaipur, he advised that appeals were 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, therefore, urged that delay in filing of the appeals may be condoned because 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), so that the applicant may pray for restoration of the two applications already dismissed, for their fresh decision.
Ld. DR for the department has contended that the above said grounds put forth by Ld. AR for the applicant does not establish any ‘sufficient cause’ for condonation of delay. However, 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 & 273/JPR/2025 Shri Poddar Sewa Samiti vs. CIT(E) mentioned in the impugned order, the matter may require to be remitted to Learned CIT(E). While making said submission, Ld. DR for the department has left 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 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, 10.01.2023 and 23.01.2024, but the representative of the applicant did not produce details/documents before Learned CIT(E). So much so, the representative of the applicant failed to & 273/JPR/2025 Shri Poddar Sewa Samiti vs. CIT(E) 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 there, 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), an opportunity may be granted to the 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 incorporated.
Having gone through the impugned order, we find that four 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) so as to make available all the documents/details, we deem it a fit case to condone the delay in filing of the appeals. For the above said reasons, the applicant Samiti cannot be & 273/JPR/2025 Shri Poddar Sewa Samiti vs. CIT(E) made to suffer, when its representative was not provided proper legal advice as regards the remedy to challenge the impugned orders.
However taking into consideration that the President of the applicant Samiti did not pursue the matter diligently even in contacting the other counsel for better timely legal advice, as regards the remedy and simply kept on waiting and wasted the precious time, which 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. On Merits 14. Having regard to 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. Since, representative of the applicant Samiti remained non compliant as regards the directions issued by way of four notices, as mentioned & 273/JPR/2025 Shri Poddar Sewa Samiti vs. CIT(E) above, the applicant Samiti is burdened with costs of Rs. 2000/- to be deposited by the applicant in “Prime Minister’s National Relief Fund”.. Result 15. As a result, both the appeals are disposed of and the two applications u/s 12AB and 80G(5)(iii) of the Act are restored to the files of Learned CIT(E) for decision afresh, while affording an opportunity to the applicant Samiti, as observed above, 16. The applicant Samiti to deposit costs and produce the receipts before Learned CIT(E) before commencement of the proceedings on remand. Files be consigned to the record room after the needful is done by the office. Order pronounced in the open court on 15/07/2025. Sd/- Sd/- ¼xxu xks;y½ ¼ujsUnz dqekj½ (GAGAN GOYAL) (NARINDER KUMAR) ys[kk lnL; @Accountant Member U;kf;d lnL;@Judicial Member Tk;iqj@Jaipur fnukad@Dated:- 15/07/2025 *Santosh आदेश की प्रतिलिपि अग्रेf’ात@ब्वचल वf जीम वतकमत वितूंतकमक जवरू The Appellant- Shri Poddar Sewa Samiti, Sikar. 1. 2. izR;FkhZ@ The Respondent- CIT(E), Jaipur. 3. vk;dj vk;qDr@ The ld CIT 4. विभागीय प्रतिनिधि] आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण] जयपुर@क्त्ए प्ज्Aज्ए Jंपचनत सहायक पंजीकार@Aेेजज. त्महपेजतंत