PETANITY AND ANIMAL REHABILITATORS FOUNDATION,CHANDRAPUR vs. CIT EXEMPTION, PUNE

This appeal by assessee is directed against the order of learned CIT(Exemption), Pune dated 18.10.2024 in rejecting application for registration of trust under section 12AA/12AB of the Income Tax Act (Act). The ld. CIT(E) rejected the application in ex-parte proceeding and also cancelled provisional registration under section 12AB.

Rival submissions of both the parties have been heard and record perused. The ld. AR of the assessee fairly submits that there is delay of about 78 days in filing present appeal. The assessee has already filed application for condonation of delay which is supported with affidavit of Devendra Odal Rapelli. The ld. AR of the assessee submits that assessee is a small trust in a remote area of Chanderpur Petanity And Animal Rehdabilitators Foundation ITA 165/Nag/2025 District. The officer bearer of assessee is not much familiar with electronic gadget and use of with e–mail etc. The office bearer of assessee is using mobile phone only for the purpose of telephonic calls. The assessee could not realise about issuance of notice by ld. CIT(E). Thus, no compliance was made. Similarly, the assessee could not become aware on dismissal of application by ld. CIT(E). On realising that application of assessee under section 12AB has been rejected, the assessee filed present appeal before Tribunal. The delay is not intentional or deliberate. The assessee is interested to pursue their application on merit. The ld. AR of the assessee submits that one more opportunity may be allowed to contest the application on merit and matter may be restored back to the file of ld. CIT(E).

On the other hand, learned Commissioner of Income Tax – Departmental Representative (ld. CIT–DR) for the Revenue opposed the plea of condonation of delay raised by assessee. On merit, the ld. CIT–DR submits that assessee has given an opportunity to file details about object and activities. The assessee failed to furnish such details. Hence, the assessee deserves no leniency at this stage.

We have considered the submissions of both the parties. Considering the submission of ld. AR on the plea of condonation of delay, we find that delay is not intentional or deliberate in filing appeal. Moreover, there is delay of 78 days in filing appeal. Considering the explanation furnished by ld. AR of the assessee, delay in filing appeal is condoned. Now adverting to the merits of the case.