Loading judgment…
No AI summary yet for this case.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, MUMBAI BENCH “A”, MUMBAI
Before: SHRI NARENDRA KUMAR BILLAIYA, HONBLE & SHRI SANDEEP SINGH KARHAIL, HONBLE
O R D E R PER NARENDRA KUMAR BILLAIYA (AM)
& 4745/MUM/2023 (A.Y: 2023-24) Arkheia Foundation “Ld. CIT(E)”] dated 18.08.2023 by which the Ld. CIT(E) rejected the application seeking Registration under section 12AB of Income-tax Act, 1961 (in short “Act”) and also application seeking approval under section 80G of the Act.
At the outset, we observe that there is a delay in filing the appeal in . The delay is of 66 days. We have carefully perused the facts causing the delay and are satisfied that the assessee has been prevented by the reasonable and sufficient cause in not filing the appeal within the period of limitation. The delay is condoned.
The counsel for the assessee brought to our notice that the notice of hearing was sent by the Ld. CIT(E) at an incorrect E-Mail ID address. It is the say of the counsel that the correct E-Mail ID is rsampat@yahoo.com whereas the notices has been sent to rsampat@gmail.com. It is the say of the counsel that because of non-appearance the assessee could not file necessary details for want of which the Ld. CIT(E) took adverse view.
We have given a thoughtful consideration to the submissions of the counsel, we find force in the contention of the counsel. It appears
Page No. 2 & 4745/MUM/2023 (A.Y: 2023-24) Arkheia Foundation that the notice has been sent at a wrong E-Mail ID and therefore the assessee could not respond with evidences before the Ld. CIT(E). Therefore, in the interest of justice and fair play, we restore the appeals to the file of the Ld. CIT(E). The Ld. CIT(E) is directed to decide the impugned applications afresh, after serving a proper notice and giving a reasonable and adequate opportunity of being heard to the assessee.
In the result, both the appeals are allowed for statistical purposes.
Order pronounced in the open court on 16th May, 2024.