Loading judgment…
Facts
The assessee filed an application for registration under Section 80G(5)(iii) of the Income-tax Act, 1961. The CIT(E) rejected the application because the assessee did not have a valid registration certificate under Section 12A of the Act. The appeal was filed late by 183 days, but the delay was condoned due to sufficient cause, as the appellant is a small trust unaware of online proceedings.
Held
The Tribunal noted that a previous order of the CIT(E) rejecting the Section 12A application had been set aside and remanded for fresh adjudication. Given this, and with no objection from the Revenue, the Tribunal set aside the current order of the CIT(E) and restored it for fresh consideration on merits.
Key Issues
Whether the CIT(E) erred in rejecting the application for registration under Section 80G(5)(iii) in the absence of a valid Section 12A registration certificate. Whether principles of natural justice were followed by the CIT(E).
Sections Cited
80G(5)(iii), 12A, 12A(1)(ac)(iii)
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Before: MS. SUCHITRA RAGHUNATH KAMBLE & SHRI BIJAYANANDA PRUSETH
आदेश / O R D E R
PER BIJAYANANDA PRUSETH, AM:
This appeal emanates from the order dated 28.06.2024 passed by the Commissioner of Income-tax (Exemption), Ahmedabad [in short “the CIT(E)”] rejecting application for grant of registration under Section 80G(5)(iii) of Income-tax Act, 1961 (‘in short, the Act’) in absence of valid registration certificate u/s 12A of the Act.
Grounds of appeal
raised by the assessee for the appeals are as under:
1. On the facts and circumstances of the case as well as law on the subject, the learned Commissioner of the Income-tax(Exemption), Ahmedabad has erred in rejecting application for grant of registration u/s 80G(5)(iii) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. In absence of valid registration certificate u/s 12A of the Act.
SMMKC&BMGE,CNi Sheri 2. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case as well as the law on the subject the learned Commissioner of the Income Tax (Exemption), Ahmedabad has erred in not ranting adequate opportunity to hear and passed the order, hence, the principal of natural justice is not abide.
On the facts and in the circumstances of the case as well as the law on the subject, the appellant trust is qualifying for registration u/s 80G(5)(iii) of the Income Tax Act, 1961.
It is therefore prayed that order of CIT(Exemption) should be directed passed u/s 80G(5)(iii) of the Income Tax Act, may please be set aside to the file of the CIT (Exemption) with appropriate direction.
5. Appellant craves leave to add, alter or delete any ground(s) either before or in the course of hearing of the appeal.”
3. The appeal was filed late by 183 days. The appellant has filed an affidavit and stated that the order was passed on 28.06.2024 and hence the appeal was required to be filed on or before 27.08.2024; but, it was actually filed on 26.02.2025, after a delay of 183 days. The appellant is a small trust and was not aware about online income-tax proceedings. As and when the appellant received notices of hearing, the same were forwarded to its Authorized Representative for further action. The tax consultant did not check e-mails regularly. When it was discovered that the CIT(E) has passed order rejecting the application u/s 80G(5)(iii), the appellant immediately consulted the AR and filed the appeal. Hence, the delay of 183 days was not intentional and there was sufficient and reasonable cause for not filing appeal in time before Tribunal. The Ld. AR of the appellant requested that the delay may be condoned and the appeal may be decided on merit.
We have considered the reasons given by the Ld. AR and perused the accompanied affidavit. We find that the delay of 183 days in filing appeal was not deliberate and intentional on the part of assessee. After considering the reasons given in the affidavit, we find that there was sufficient cause for not filing the appeal on time. The appellant is a small trust and the delay was due to not checking the e-mail on regular basis. It is well recognized that when technical consideration and cause of substantial justice are pitted against each other, the cause of substantial justice may be preferred. Hence, the delay in filing the appeal is condoned and the appeal is decided on merit.
Brief facts of the case are that the appellant-trust filed an application for approval u/s 80G(5)(iii) of the Act. The CIT(E) issued notices on 26.04.2024, 16.05.2024 and 18.06.2024. The appellant filed reply to the said notices. On perusal of the reply and details available on record, the CIT(E) found that the application of the appellant filed on 14.12.2023 in Form No.10AB for registration u/s 12A(1)(ac)(iii) of the Act was rejected vide order bearing No.ITBA/EXM/F/EXM45/2024-25/1066160665(1) dated 27.06.2024. Since the appellant did not have any valid registration u/s 12A(1)(ac)(iii), the pre- requisites for grant of approval u/s 80G is not satisfied. Hence, the application was rejected without going into the merit of the case.
SMMKC&BMGE,CNi Sheri 7. Aggrieved by the order of CIT(E), the assessee filed appeal before the Tribunal. The learned Authorized Representative (ld. AR) of the assessee submitted that against the order of rejection of the application for registration u/s 12A(1)(ac) (iii) of the Act, the appellant had filed an appeal before the Tribunal. The Tribunal has set aside the order of CIT(E) and remanded it to the file of CIT(E) for passing a fresh order after granting adequate opportunity of hearing to the assessee. Hence, he requested that the present order of CIT(E) may also be set aside to the file of CIT(E).
On the other hand, learned Commissioner of Income-tax - Departmental Representative (ld. CIT-DR) for the revenue supported the order of CIT(E). He would, however, have no objection if the matter is remitted to the file of the CIT(E) for fresh adjudication.
We have heard both the parties and perused the materials available on record. The order of CIT(E) rejecting the application for registration u/s 12A(1)(ac)(iii) has been set aside by the Tribunal and CIT(E) has been directed to pass fresh order after granting adequate and reasonable opportunity of hearing to the appellant. The Ld.AR of the assessee, therefore, requested that the present appeal may also be set aside to the file of CIT(E). The ld. CIT-DR has also no objection, if matter is remitted to the CIT(E). Considering all these facts, the order of CIT(E) is set aside and restored to the file of CIT(E) for fresh consideration on merits after deciding the application for registration u/s SMMKC&BMGE,CNi Sheri 12A(1)(ac)(iii) of the Act. The CIT(E) should grant adequate and reasonable opportunity of hearing to the assessee. The assessee is also directed to furnish its submission and the relevant details/documents before the CIT(E) as and when called for. For statistical purposes, the appeal of the assessee is treated as allowed.
In the result, assessee’s appeal is allowed for statistical purposes. Order is pronounced in accordance with Rule 34(3) of the ITAT Rules, 1963 on 11/06/2025 in the open court.