SWAMI SAMARTHA MAHARAJ SEVA SAMASTHAN,KANCHEEPURAM vs. CIT, EXEMPTIONS,, CHENNAI

At the outset, we find that there is a delay of 245 days in appeals filed by the assessee, for which petition for condonation of delay along with reasons. The trustee of assessee’s trust submitted an affidavit for the delay stating that the assessee unaware of the order of rejection of the application due to not checked email and logging into the income tax e-filing portal during the relevant period and only became aware of the rejection of application while filing of its return of :-2-:

3090 & 3091/Chny/2025 income. Therefore, there was delay in filing the appeal and prayed that the delay be condoned. After considering the petition filed by the assessee and also hearing both the parties, we find that there is a reasonable cause for the assessee in not filing appeal on or before the due date prescribed under the law and thus, in the interests of justice, we condone delay in filing of appeal and admit appeal filed by the assessee for adjudication.

The only ground raised by the assessee in these two appeals are that the ld.CIT(E) has rejected the applications filed by the assessee and denied the registration u/s.12AB and u/s.80G of the Act due to non-submission of the complete details and documents by the assessee before the ld.CIT(E).

The brief facts of the case are that the assessee is a Trust and filed an application dated 30.06.2024 in Form 10AB seeking registration u/s.12A(1)(ac)(iii) of the Act and in From 10AB seeking recognition u/s.80G(5)(iii) of the Act. The Ld.CIT(E) rejected the said applications by passing separate orders dated 05.12.2024 on the ground that the assessee has not responded to any of the notices to substantiate its nature of activities as charitable. Aggrieved by the orders passed by the ld.CIT(E), the assessee is in appeal before us.

At the outset, we observed that the Ld.CIT(E) has provided two opportunities to the assessee to appear for hearings as detailed in paragraph 3.1 of the ld.CIT(E) order to support the application of the assessee. However, the assessee chose to be silent and did not respond to any of the notices and hence the ld.CIT(E) rejected the application as not maintainable by passing an order dated 05.12.2024.

Aggrieved by the orders of the ld.CIT(E), the assessee is in appeal before us.

1. 3090 & 3091/Chny/2025 7. The ld.AR submitted that the ld.CIT(E) erred in dismissing the appeal on grounds of non-prosecution without considering the genuine reasons that the assessee was not aware of the notices issued by the ld.CIT(E) and hence he could not appear and submit the valid evidence before the ld.CIT(E). In view of the above, the ld.AR prayed to set aside the orders of ld.CIT(E) and provide one more opportunity to the assessee to substantiate its applications. Further, ld.AR assured the bench that the ld.AR will represent on behalf of the assessee before the ld.CIT(E) in support of its applications effectively.

Per contra, the Ld.DR supported the views taken by the ld.CIT(E) and argued that the rejection is justified and thus prayed that the appeal of the assessee may be dismissed.

We have heard both the parties perused the materials on record and gone through the order of the authority. We find that the sole issue for consideration based on the grounds of appeal of the assessee before us is that the applications for registration filed in Form 10AB both u/s.12AB and u/s.80G have been rejected as not maintainable by the ld.CIT(E) due to non-participation of the assessee.