Loading judgment…
Facts
The assessee filed applications in Form 10AB for approval under Section 12A(1)(ac)(iii) and Section 80GP of the Income Tax Act. The CIT(E) rejected these applications on the grounds that the assessee failed to provide documentary evidence regarding the genuineness and activities of the trust and compliance with other laws. The assessee attributed the delay in filing to a lack of understanding of online compliance systems and the non-cooperation of their accountant.
Held
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeals in the interest of justice, imposing a cost of Rs. 5000/- to be deposited with the Prime Minister Relief Fund. The Tribunal noted the assessee's submission that they were a senior citizen, less educated, and unaware of online procedures, and that their accountant had not cooperated. While the CIT(E)'s rejection was based on non-compliance, the Tribunal restored the matter for de-novo adjudication.
Key Issues
Whether the delay in filing the appeals for condonation is justifiable due to the assessee's age, lack of education, and reliance on an uncooperative accountant, and whether the CIT(E) erred in rejecting the applications for registration/approval due to insufficient documentary evidence.
Sections Cited
12A(1)(ac)(iii), 12AB, 80GP
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, RAJKOT BENCH, RAJKOT
Before: DR. ARJUN LAL SAINI, AM. &
आदेश / O R D E R PER DINESH MOHAN SINHA JM;
Captioned appeal filed by assessee, directed against order passed by Commissioner of Income Tax (E) Ahmedabad, on application in form 10AB u/s 12A (1) (ac) (iii) of the income-tax Act. wherein the application filed by the assessee for approval u/s 12AB of the income-tax Act. was rejected on 04-11-2023 and Application in Form 10AB under 80G (5) (iii) of the income-tax Act. was rejected on 24-11-2023 by Ld.CIT(E) Ahmedabad.
The grounds of appeal
mentioned hereunder are without prejudice to one another.
2. That the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemptions), Ahmedabad has erred in law and on facts in refusing to grant registration u/s 12AB of the Income Tax Act,1961.
3. Your Honor’s appellant craves leave to add, to amend, alter, or withdraw any or more grounds of appeal on or before the hearing of appeal. GROUNDS OF APPEALS, -
The grounds of appeal
mentioned hereunder are without prejudice to one another.
2. That the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemptions), Ahmedabad has erred in law and on facts in refusing to grant approval u/s 80GP of the Income Tax Act,1961.
3. Your Honor’s appellant craves leave to add, to amend, alter, or withdraw any or more grounds of appeal on or before the hearing of appeal. Since these two appeals filed by the same assessee are directed against the separate order passed by Ld. CIT (E) for different applications. Since the issue of rejection of application are same there for these two appeals have been heard together and consolidated order is being passed for the convenience and brevity. First we will adjudicate . Since both the appeals are filed on 19/04/2024. late by 109 days and ITA No. 240/Rjt/2024 late by 89 days respectively, That the reason for condonation of delay is same. The relevant para of the application is :
Para No. 5: “I am a senior citizen and less educated and completely unaware about online system of compliance and e-mail tracking and for which I relied upon the accountant who could not timely inform me and has left the job which has resulted into delay in filing appeal before your honors which may please be condoned.” Para No. 6: “That the delay was not willful or deliberate and that the appeal documents are Bonafide. The substantial merits of the case justify condonation of delay.”
The AR submitted that the assessee is senior citizen less educated and completely unaware about the online system of compliance and completely depend on the accountant for computer operation. That the accountants has non co-operated with the assessee. Hence the assessee could not reply to the notices issued by the department and prayed for an opportunity to be given to explain the case before Ld. CIT(E) The delay was not willful or deliberate and that the appeal documents are Bonafide. Substantial merits of the case justify condonation of the delay.”
(i) On the contrary DR submitted and relied on the order of Ld. CIT(E) However Ld. DR has not objected to the prayer of the assessee.
We have heard both the parties and perused all the material available on records. We note that the assessee could not established sufficient course for condonation of delay in filing the appeals. However, we impose a consolidated cost of Rs. 5000/- on the assessee and the same has to be deposited with Prime Minister Relief Fund within 10 days from today. In the interest of justice, we condone the delay in filing of the present appeals and both the appeals are heard on merit.
The brief facts of the case in that 08/05/2023 in form no. 12AB within the meaning of section 12A(1)(ac)(iii) income-tax of the Act 1961. The notices was issued to the assessee on 30/09/2023 & 11/10/2023 sent throw ITBA portal to furnish certain details/documents. The assessee has neither filed any submission nor sought any adjournment in this case in the absence of requisite detail, a present case decided on the basis of material available on records. The Ld. CIT(E) rejected the application of the assessee stating that
“The applicant/assessee has failed to file documentary evidences to enable me to satisfy about: i. Genuineness of the activities of the trust or institution. ii. That the activities of trust or institution are in consonance with the objects of the trust or institution. iii. That other laws material for the purpose of achieving objects are complied with.
In view of the above, the present application filed in Form No. 10AB u/s 12A (1) (ac)(iii) of the Act is rejected and provisional registration is also cancelled.”
Feeling aggrieved by the order of Ld. CIT(E) the assessee has filed an appeal before us.
(i) Ld. AR of the assessee filed written submission: “The director of the appellant is 68 years of age, a senior citizen and less educated and completely unaware about online systems of compliance and e-mail tracking and for which I relied upon the accountant who could not timely inform me and has left the job.
(ii) On the contrary Ld. DR submitted that assessee has not submitted the documents before the authority, the assessee trusts a non-co-operative attitude in compliance with the notice issued by the department.
We have heard both the parties and perused all the material available on records. We note that the Ld.CIT(E) has issued notices on 30/09/2023, 11/10/2023 asking for document in support of the appeal of registration the Act in order to know about the geniuses of the activities of the trust and also to verify the activities are in consonance with the object of the trust and it was also to ensur that purpose of achieving objects are complied with, but the assessee failed to comply with terms of the notice. That the assessee submitted before us. The reasons for non-compliance was that the assessee was compleately unaware about the online system of non-compliance. The Ld. AR of the assessee assured us about compliance to the notices issued by the Ld. CIT(E) considering the facts and circumstance of the case and in the interest of the justice. We restore the matter back with the file of the Ld. CIT(E) for De-novo adjudication of the application in form 10AB section 12A(1)(ac)(iii) of the income-tax Act. Assessee was directed to submitted the relevant document and evidence as required by Ld. CIT(E) if any.
Now coming to ITA No. 240/RJT/2024.
Since the facts circumstance of the case similar and the assessee failed to comply with the terms of notice. The is disposed of in the above terms. In combined result the appeal filed by the assessee in &240/Rjt/2024 are allowed for statical purpose.
Order pronounced in the open court on 09/ 06/2025. Sd/- Sd/- (Dr. A.L. SAINI) (DINESH MOHAN SINHA) ACCOUNT MEMBER JUDICAL MEMBER