Loading judgment…
Facts
The assessee's applications for registration u/s.12AB and approval u/s.80G(5) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 were rejected by the CIT(E) due to non-prosecution. The assessee claimed unawareness of online proceedings and notices, leading to non-appearance and a significant delay of approximately 700 days in filing appeals before the Tribunal.
Held
The Tribunal restored the matters to the file of the CIT(E) for fresh consideration, directing the assessee to deposit Rs.5,000/- for each appeal into the Prime Minister's National Relief Fund as a condition. The assessee was also instructed to be diligent in responding to notices from the CIT(E) moving forward.
Key Issues
Whether the CIT(E) was justified in rejecting the applications for registration u/s.12AB and approval u/s.80G(5) due to non-prosecution, and if the delay in filing appeals should be condoned.
Sections Cited
Section 12AB, Section 80G(5)
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “ A” BENCH, AHMEDABAD
Before: Shri Sanjay Garg & Annapurna Gupta
O R D E R
Per Sanjay Garg, Judicial Member:
These are two appeals preferred by the assessee against the separate orders of the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemption), Ahmedabad [hereinafter referred to as ‘CIT(E)’] dated 18/09/2023 & 22/09/2023, rejecting the applications of the assessee for registration u/s.12AB of the Act and approval u/s.80G(5) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 respectively (hereinafter referred to as “the Act”).
& 2114/Ahd/2025 Devraj Narshi Mehta Audichya Gohilwadi Brahman Boarding vs. CIT(E)
2 2. At the outset, the Ld. Counsel for the assessee-trust has submitted that the trust is engaged in charitable activities. That the notices were issued by the Ld. CIT(E) through email, however, since the assessee-trust was located at a small place in Junagadh and the trustees were not aware about the know- how of ‘online’ procedure of the income-tax proceedings and even the Counsel for the assessee-trust also did not inform or look into the issue. It has, therefore, been explained that the assessee-trust was not aware about the notices of hearing and even did not receive the impugned orders of the CIT(E) dismissing the applications of the assessee for want of prosecution/non- furnishing the requisite details. That when it come to the knowledge of the assessee-trust about the passing of the impugned orders of the CIT(E), a considerable delay of about 700 days had already occurred. The Ld. Counsel for the assessee has stated that the aforesaid delay in filing these appeals as well as non-prosecution of the applications before the CIT(E) was not intentional, but due to the aforesaid facts and circumstances. The Ld. Counsel for the assessee has submitted that the assessee-trust is engaged in charitable activities and deserves to be registered as Charitable Institution u/s.12A of the Act and is eligible for approval u/s.80G of the Act.
Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, we are of the view that the interests of justice will be well-served, if the assessee-trust is given an opportunity to present its cases before the Ld.CIT(E), subject to payment of some reasonable costs. We, accordingly, direct the assessee-trust to deposit a sum of Rs.5,000/- each in respect of the aforesaid two appeals in the Prime Minister’s National Relief Fund and will show the proof of such deposit before the Ld. CIT(E). Subject to fulfilment of the above condition, both the matters are restored to the file of the Ld.CIT(E) with a direction to decide the applications of the assessee-trust afresh, after giving a reasonable & 2114/Ahd/2025 Devraj Narshi Mehta Audichya Gohilwadi Brahman Boarding vs. CIT(E) opportunity of hearing to the assessee-trust. The assessee-trust will take care of the notices issued by the Ld.CIT(E) and it will not be a ground available to the assessee that the notices issued by the Ld.CIT(E) did not come to its knowledge.