Loading judgment…
Facts
The assessee trust filed an application for registration under Section 80G of the Income Tax Act. The CIT(E) rejected the application due to non-compliance with notices. The assessee's appeal was filed 18 days late due to the counsel's personal difficulties.
Held
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal. The Tribunal found that the assessee was not given adequate opportunity of hearing and set aside the order of the CIT(E). The matter was remitted back to the CIT(E) for fresh consideration with a direction to provide another opportunity of hearing.
Key Issues
Whether the CIT(E) properly rejected the application for registration without providing adequate opportunity of hearing, and if the delay in filing the appeal should be condoned.
Sections Cited
80G
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, CUTTACK BENCH, CUTTACK
Before: S/SHRI DUVVURU RL REDDY(KZ) & RAJESH KUMAR
Assessment Year : 2025-26 Bhoomishri Public Charitable Vs. CIT(Exemptions), Hyderabad Trust, Plot No.36/469, Secrtor-8, CDA, PO: Markat Nagar, Avinab Bidanasi, Cuttack. PAN/GIR No. AAFTB 6651 L (Appellant) .. ( Respondent) Assessee by : Shri P.K.Mishra, Adv Revenue by : Shri Ashim Kr Chakraborty, CIT DR Date of Hearing : 02/07/2025 Date of Pronouncement : 02/07/2025 O R D E R Per Bench The present appeal is directed at the instance of assessee against the order of ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemptions) Hyderabad dated 20.12.2014 passed for Assessment Year 2025-26.
The appeal is time barred by 18 days. The assessee has filed condonation supported with affidavit stating that by the time the ld CIT(E) passed the impugned order, the counsel of the assessee trust was busy in medical treatment of his elder father, could not be able to look into the P a g e 1 | 4 income tax proceedings. Finally, after a long period of treatment, the elder father of the counsel expired. Thereafter, he joined his office on 17.3.2025 and after collecting the order from the appellant trust, filed the appeal, for which there was a delay of 18 days only in filing the appeal. It is prayed that the delay be condoned.
On the other hand, ld Sr DR did not object to the condonation petition.
After hearing both the sides, we are satisfied that the assessee had reasonable cause for not preferring the appeal in time. Therefore, we condone the delay of 18 days and admit the appeal for hearing.
Facts of the case are that the assessee had filed an application in form No.10AB seeking registration u/s.80G of the Act. Notices were issued to the assessee by the ld CIT(E) to produce the copy of Memorandum of Association/Trust deed for verification and to furnish a detailed reply on the specific query. As the assessee has not complied with the notices, the ld CIT(E) rejected the application for grant of registration u/s.80G of the Act. Hence, the assessee is in appeal before us.
5. At the time of hearing, ld. Counsel for the assessee stated that the ld CIT(E) has rejected the application for grant of registration u/s. 80G of the Act without giving adequate opportunity of hearing to the assessee. He
P a g e 2 | 4 prayed before the Bench that the impugned order be set aside and remitted back to the file of ld. CIT(E)) for deciding it afresh.
On the other hand, ld Sr DR supported the order of the ld CIT(E).
We have heard the rival contentions and perused the material available on record. A perusal of the impugned order clearly shows that as there was no response to the notices issued by the ld CIT(E) to substantiate the claim with documentary evidences and submissions, ld CIT(E) rejected the application for grant of registration u/s.80G. Before us, ld AR undertakes that the assessee will cooperate the proceedings, if the matter is restored back to the file of the ld CIT(E). Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, we are inclined to set aside the order passed by the ld. CIT(E) in order to meet the principle of natural justice, and remit the matter back to his file with a direction to provide one more opportunity of being heard to the assessee. At the same breath, we also hereby caution the assessee to promptly co-operate with the proceedings before the ld CIT(E), failing which the ld CIT(E) shall be at liberty to pass appropriate order in accordance with law and merits based on the materials available on the record. Thus, the grounds raised by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes.
P a g e 3 | 4
In the result, appeal of the assessee stands allowed for statistical purposes.
Order dictated and pronounced in the open court on 02/07/2025.