PROJECT SWARAJYA,CUTTACK vs. COMMISSIONER-OF-INCOME TAX(EXEMPTION), HYDERABAD, HYDERABAD

It was submitted by the ld. AR that the assessee had applied in Form 10AB seeking registration u/s.80G of the Act. It was the submission that the ld.CIT(E) has rejected the application for registration on account of delay in filing Form 10AB. It was the submission that no opportunity was granted to the assessee to explain the delay. It was the prayer that the issues may be restored to the file of ld. CIT(E) so that the assessee could explain the delay.

We have considered the rival submissions. A perusal of the facts of the present case clearly shows that the assessee has filed application for registration u/s.80G of the Act, which was rejected by the ld. CIT(E) on account of filing of form 10AB belatedly. A further perusal of the order of the ld. CIT(E) shows that the assessee had to apply Form 10A by selecting the section code 80G(5)(i) instead of 80G(5)(iv) of the Act for which the ld. CIT(E) has rejected the application of the assessee treating the same as non-maintainable. Admittedly, the assessee has filed the application belatedly. When the power for granting the registration is available with an authority, the power to condone the delay in filing the application is also available with the authority. This is a part of principle of natural justice and judicial jurisprudence. Before rejecting an application for registration on account of delay, it would be worthwhile to grant the assessee an opportunity of being heard. This being so, in the interest of justice, the issues in this appeal in respect of grant of registration u/s.80G of the Act is restored to the file of ld. CIT(E) for granting the assessee adequate opportunity to explain the delay in filing the application for regular registration u/s.80G of the Act. It is also directed that the ld.CIT(E) shall grant the assessee sufficient opportunity to file the correct form under the correct second code and readjudicate the issue afresh.