Loading judgment…
Facts
The assessee's application for registration under Section 12A(1)(ac)(iii) of the Income Tax Act was rejected by the CIT(E) for non-submission of documents. The appeal was filed belatedly by 479 days, with the assessee claiming they were unaware of the rejection as no notice was received via email or post, only on the ITBA portal.
Held
The Tribunal condoned the delay and admitted the appeal for hearing on merits. The Tribunal found that no proper notice was served to the assessee, and the rejection was based on a lack of communication, thus violating principles of natural justice.
Key Issues
Whether the rejection of the registration application without proper service of notice to the assessee is justified, and if the delay in filing the appeal should be condoned.
Sections Cited
12A(1)(ac)(iii), 282
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, AMRITSAR BENCH: AMRITSAR.
Before: SH. UDAYAN DAS GUPTA & SH. KRINWANT SAHAY
Appellant by Sh. Joginder Singh, CA. Respondent by Sh. Bharat Bhushan Garg, CIT. DR Date of Hearing 09.04.2025 Date of Pronouncement 24.04.2025 ORDER Per: Udayan Das Gupta, J.M.:
This appeal is filed by the assessee against the order of Ld. CIT (E), Chandigarh, dated 18/01/2023, rejecting the application for registration u/s 12A(1)(ac)(iii) of the Act 61, filed on 27.09.2022 for non-submission of documentary evidences and in sufficiency of documents.
Condonation of delay:
It is pointed out by the registry that the appeal is belatedly filed by 479 days. The assessee has filed an affidavit praying for condonation of delay in filing this appeal on the ground that the order of the ld. CIT(E) has not been received by the assessee in the e-mail Id provided in the application for registration. He further submitted that e-mail ID has been provided in the application for registration and the same e- mail ID natrangjammu@gmail.com is also mentioned in Income Tax profile of the assessee.
2.1 Neither any notice of hearing nor the order has been issued in the said e-mail ID and the assessee was not even aware as to the fact that the application for registration has been rejected, because no rejection order has been received by him either by post nor by e-mail. He further submitted that on subsequent inquiry in the portal at a later date it was found that the application for registration has been rejected without any further communication and as such, the assessee immediately took necessary steps to file the appeal before the Tribunal on 12.07.2024 which was belated by 479 days, for no fault of the assessee. He prays that since there was no communication through electronic mode or through speed post as per provisions of section 282 of the Act, the order of the ld. CIT(E) has remained unserved and as such he prays for condoning the delay and for admission of the appeal to be heard and decide on merits. The ld. DR has no objection to considering the submissions and the contents of the affidavit as such considering the reasons submitted, we hereby condone the delay and admit the appeal for hearing on merits.
The grounds of appeal contained in Form 36 are as follows:
“1. That the Ld. CIT(E) Chandigarh erred in passing the order Under section 12AB of the Income Tax Act, 1961 merely on assumptions and presumptions, without affording the adequate opportunity of being heard to the assessee. That the order of the Ld. CIT(E), Chandigarh is against the principles of natural justices and same is required to be set aside.
2. That the Ld. CIT(E), Chandigarh has erred both in law as well as on facts by rejecting the application of the Appellant without considering the merit of the case.
3. The appellant craves leave to add, amend, alter or otherwise raise any other ground of appeal.”
Brief facts emerging from the records are that an application has been made by the assessee institution for registration u/s 12A(1)(ac)(iii) of the Act 61 on 27.09.2022 and in absence of any notice of hearing or in absence of any notice calling for documentary evidence being issued through e-mail or by post no compliance could be made by the assessee, resulting in rejection of said application.
The ld. AR of the assessee submitted that as evident from the portal in all the cases, notice has been issued in the ITBA portal from the office of the ld. CIT(E) calling for documents and in support of his contention he has filed screen shots of the portal and submitted that no notice has been issued in the e-mail ID provided in the application and also available with the ld. CIT(E) in the portal. The assessee was totally unaware about the requisite notices being issued and could not comply with the same, resulting in the registration being rejected. He also referred to the judgment of the Hon’ble P & H High Court in the case of Munjal BCU Centre, reference CWP 21028-2023 (O & M) dated 04.03.2024 to submit that notices issued in the ITBA portal is not proper service and notice should be issued as per provisions laid down u/s 282 of the Act 1961 (r.w.r. 127 of the IT Rules 1962).
5.1 As such he prays that the matter may be remanded back to the file of the ld. CIT(E) for consideration of the application afresh. The ld. DR has no objection.
We have heard the rival submission and considered the material on record and we find that no notice from the office of the ld. CIT(E) has been issued or served in the e-mail ID or by post and the same has not been complied with by the assessee, because the same has been served in ITBA portal only. As such, in the interest of justice the matter is remanded back to the file of the ld. CIT(E) for considering the application for registration afresh after allowing proper and reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee and the assessee is also directed to file all documentary evidences as per requisition of the ld. CIT(E) for disposal of his application for registration. We have not expressed any opinion on merits. As such the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes. allowed for statistical purposes.
Order pronounced on 24.04.2025 at Amritsar, Punjab in accordance with Rule 34(4) of the Income tax (Appellate Tribunal) Rules, 1963.