ANGEL XPRESS FOUNDATION ,MUMBAI vs. CIT (EXEMPTION), MUMBAI
Facts
The appellant had applied for regularization of its provisional approval under Section 80G(5) of the Income Tax Act. The lower authority rejected the application due to the appellant mentioning an incorrect clause in their application, deeming it a renewal application instead of a regularization. The appeal was filed with a delay of 65 days.
Held
The Tribunal condoned the delay, stating it was neither deliberate nor malafide. The Tribunal held that the lower authority acted hyper-technically by rejecting the application based on a minor error in mentioning the section, and that the application should have been treated as one for regularization.
Key Issues
Whether the rejection of the appellant's application for regularization of provisional approval under Section 80G(5) based on a technicality was justified? Whether to condone the delay in filing the appeal?
Sections Cited
80G(5), 11AA(2)
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, MUMBAI BENCH “A”, MUMBAI
Before: SHRI NARENDER KUMAR CHOUDHRY & SHRI OMKARESHWAR CHIDARA
Per : Narender Kumar Choudhry, Judicial Member:
This appeal has been preferred by the Assessee/Appellant herein against the order dated 05.12.2023, impugned herein, passed by the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemptions) (in short Ld. Commissioner) under section 80G(5) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short ‘the Act’) for the A.Y. 2024-25.
At the outset, we observe that there is a delay of 65 days in filing the instant appeal. The Appellant by filing an application has claimed that though the Appellant requested its chartered accountant to file an appeal before the Hon’ble Tribunal against the impugned order, however, due to rush of work related to financial year closing,
2 ITA No.1807/M/2024 M/s. Angel Xpress Foundation
the appeal could not be filed within the limitation period. The delay occurred in fact was neither deliberate nor malafide but based on the aforesaid reason. Therefore the Hon’ble Tribunal is requested to condone the delay which is otherwise meager. On the contrary, the Ld. D.R. refuted the claim of the Appellant qua condonation of delay. We have given thoughtful consideration the rival claims of the parties. We also do not find any material or reason to controvert the claim of the Appellant qua condonation of delay, which is otherwise meager, hence the delay is condoned.
Coming to the merits of the case, we observe that the Appellant was granted provisional approval under section 80G(5) of the Act and therefore in pursuance of that applied for registration under section 80G(5) of the Act. On perusal of the application filed by the Appellant it was observed by the Ld. Commissioner that the Appellant has applied under clause (ii) of first proviso to section 5 of section 80G(5) of the Act i.e. for renewal of approval and not for regularization of provisional approval and therefore the application is rejected with liberty to the Appellant to re-apply for registration in form No.10AB along with necessary documents as prescribed in Rule 11AA(2) of the Income Tax Rules, 1962 (in short ‘the Rules).
The Appellant, being aggrieved, is in appeal before us.
We have given thoughtful considerations to the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case. It is admitted fact that the Appellant was granted provisional approval/registration under section 80G(5) of the Act and therefore had applied for regularization of such provisional registration granted to it. May be inadvertently or mistakenly or otherwise, the Appellant mentioned the wrong provision which resulted into rejection of regularization of provisional approval or granting of regular approval under section 80G(5) of the Act by the Ld. Commissioner who acted hyper technically. In our considered view,
3 ITA No.1807/M/2024 M/s. Angel Xpress Foundation
the Ld. Commissioner should have treated the application filed by the Appellant for regularization of registration provisionally granted under section 80G(5) of the Act, by ignoring the section mentioned in the application.
Hence, for the just decision of the case and for the ends of substantial justice, we remand the instant case to the file of the Ld. Commissioner for decision afresh by treating the application filed by the Appellant as valid for seeking registration/ regularization under section 80G(5) of the Act, suffice to say by affording reasonable opportunity to the Appellant to substantiate its claim.
We also direct the Appellant to cooperate with the appellate proceedings and to file the relevant submissions/documents which would be essential and required by the Ld. Commissioner for proper adjudication of the case. We clarify that in case of further default the Appellant shall not be entitled for any leniency. Hence, the case is remanded accordingly.
In the result, the appeal filed by the Appellant stands allowed for statistical purposes.
Order pronounced in the open court on 31.07.2024.
Sd/- Sd/- (OMKARESHWAR CHIDARA) (NARENDER KUMAR CHOUDHRY) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER
* Kishore, Sr. P.S.
Copy to: The Appellant The Respondent The CIT, Concerned, Mumbai The DR Concerned Bench
4 ITA No.1807/M/2024 M/s. Angel Xpress Foundation
//True Copy//
By Order
Dy/Asstt. Registrar, ITAT, Mumbai.
