Loading judgment…
Facts
The assessee's application for registration of trust was rejected by the CIT(E), and its provisional registration was cancelled. The assessee appealed this order, but there was a delay of 24 days in filing the appeal. The assessee claimed the delay was due to unavoidable circumstances and failure to receive the order promptly.
Held
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal, finding it was not deliberate. The Tribunal noted that the CIT(E) had decided the matter ex parte due to non-compliance by the assessee with two notices. The Tribunal restored the matter to the file of the CIT(E) to provide the assessee with another opportunity to present their case and documents, adhering to principles of natural justice.
Key Issues
Whether the delay in filing the appeal should be condoned, and whether the assessee should be granted another opportunity to present their case before the CIT(E) after the order was passed ex parte.
Sections Cited
12A(1)(ac)(iii)
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Before: SHRI PAWAN SINGH & SHRI BIJAYANANDA PRUSETH
आदेश / O R D E R PER BIJAYANANDA PRUSETH: This appeal by assessee emanates from the order dated 25.07.2024, passed by the learned Commissioner of Income-tax (Exemption), Ahmedabad [in short, ‘CIT(E)’], wherein the CIT(E) rejected assessee’s application for registration of trust u/s 12A(1)(ac)(iii) of the Income-tax Act (in short, ‘the Act’) and cancelled the provisional registration. 2. Rival submission of both the parties have been heard and perused the record. The learned Authorized Representative (ld. AR) of the assessee submits that there is delay of 24 days in filling appeal before this Tribunal. The order was passed by ld. CIT(E) on 25.07.2024 and uploaded on the ITBA portal. Due to some unavoidable circumstances, assessee could not check the Shree Goverdhan Nathji Pare Bethakji Seva Trust email promptly and, as a result, did not sent the order of CIT(E) to his authorized representative (AR). When the assessee called his counsel to inquire about the status of the application for registration u/s 12a(1)(ac)(iii) of the Act, it was found that the order has already been passed and the application was rejected. Then the assessee downloaded the order immediately and filed appeal before the Tribunal on 17.10.2024. As a result, the delay of 24 days has occurred. There is no intentional or deliberate delay in filing appeal. The assessee has good case on merit and is likely to succeed, if the appeal of the assessee is heard on merit. On merit, the ld AR of the assessee made similar submissions that the assessee could make his submissions as he missed both the notices dated 30.04.2024 and 06.06.2024, purportedly served through e-mail. He submitted that only 2 notices were issued on 30.04.2024 and 06.06.2024. He argued that principles of natural justice have not been adhered to. The ld. AR submitted that the assessee is ready to submit relevant documents and details before the CIT(E) and one more opportunity may be given to assessee to plead its case on merit. He, accordingly, requested that the matter may be remitted to CIT(E) for fresh adjudication.
On the other hand, the learned Commissioner of Income-tax – Departmental Representative (ld. CIT-DR) for the revenue relied on the order of CIT(E). He, however, would have no objection if the matter is set aside to the file of CIT(E). On the plea of condonation of delay, the ld CIT-DR for the Shree Goverdhan Nathji Pare Bethakji Seva Trust revenue submits that the Bench may take a view in accordance with its discretion.
We have heard both the parties and perused the materials available on record. First, we are considering the plea of condonation od delay in filing appeal. Considering the submissions of ld AR of the assessee and the contents of the application for condonation of delay, we find that the delay in filing appeal is not intuitional or deliberate; thus, delay in filing appeal is condoned. On merit, we find that the CIT(E) has decided the matter ex parte due to non- compliance by the applicant to the two notices issued by him. There was also no adjournment request by the assessee. The ld. AR has contended that the assessee-trust is ready to submit all the details and evidences needed by the CIT(E). He requested that in the interest of justice, one more opportunity may be given to the assessee to plead its case, which is strong on merits. We are of the view that one more opportunity should be given to the assessee to file requisite documents and evidences before the CIT(E) and to plead its case before him. It is a settled law that the principles of natural justice require the affected party to be granted sufficient opportunity of being heard to contest his case. Therefore, in the interest of justice, we restore the matter to the file of the CIT(E). Accordingly, we set aside the order of CIT(E) and remit the matter to CIT(E) with a direction to pass fresh order in accordance with law after granting reasonable opportunity of hearing to the assessee. The assessee is directed to be more vigilant and diligent and to furnish all the