ARKHEIA FOUNDATION ,MUMBAI vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (EXEMPTION), , MUMBAI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 4744/MUM/2023Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai16 May 2024AY 2023-24Bench: SHRI NARENDRA KUMAR BILLAIYA, HON'BLE (Accountant Member), SHRI SANDEEP SINGH KARHAIL, HON'BLE (Judicial Member)3 pages

In favour of the assessee: the assessee's appeal was allowed. From the AI summary of this appeal.

AI SummaryAllowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal found merit in the assessee's contention that incorrect email communication led to their inability to respond. In the interest of justice and fair play, the appeals were restored to the file of the CIT(E) for a fresh decision.

What were the facts?

The appeals were filed by the assessee against separate orders of the CIT(E) rejecting applications for registration under section 12AB and approval under section 80G. There was a 66-day delay in filing one appeal, which was condoned. The assessee's counsel pointed out that hearing notices were sent to an incorrect email ID, preventing them from responding with necessary details.

What were the issues?

Whether the rejection of registration and approval applications by CIT(E) was based on proper notice and opportunity to the assessee, considering the alleged miscommunication of hearing notices.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 12AB,Section 80G

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, MUMBAI BENCH “A”, MUMBAI

Before: SHRI NARENDRA KUMAR BILLAIYA, HONBLE & SHRI SANDEEP SINGH KARHAIL, HONBLE

For Appellant: Shri Milin Dattani &, Ms. Mrunmayee Kajrekar
For Respondent: Shri Ajay Chandra
Pronounced: 16.05.2024

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.

2.

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.

3.

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.

4.

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.

5.

In the result, both the appeals are allowed for statistical purposes.

Order pronounced in the open court on 16th May, 2024.

More judgments on Section 12AB

All 5,972 judgments and leading authorities on Section 12AB →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →