Loading judgment…
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.
Held
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.
Key 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.
Sections Cited
12AB, 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
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 ITA No. 4744/MUM/2023. 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.