Loading judgment…
Facts
The appellant, Ved-Vachaspati Shastri Charitable Trust, filed an appeal against the order rejecting its application under Section 80G of the Income Tax Act. Along with the appeal, an application for condonation of delay was filed, stating the trustees were unaware of the remedy. The rejection was based on the application being time-barred and the non-submission of trust deeds/certificates.
Held
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal, noting the absence of mala fide intention and considering the CBDT's benevolent circular extending the time limit. The Tribunal also restored the application for deciding afresh on merits, giving another opportunity to the applicant to produce the required documents.
Key Issues
Whether the delay in filing the appeal and the application under Section 80G should be condoned, and whether the application deserves to be decided afresh on merits given the subsequent CBDT circular.
Sections Cited
80G
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, JAIPUR BENCHES, ‘B’ JAIPUR
Before: SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI, AM & SHRI NARINDER KUMAR, JM vk;dj vihy la-@ITA No. 419/JP/2024
आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण] जयपुर न्यायपीठ] जयपुर IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, JAIPUR BENCHES, ‘B’ JAIPUR Jh jkBkSM+ deys'k t;UrHkkbZ] ys[kk lnL; ,o Jh ujsUnz dqekj] U;kf;d lnL; ds le{k BEFORE: SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI, AM & SHRI NARINDER KUMAR, JM vk;dj vihy la-@ITA No. 419/JP/2024 cuke Ved-Vachaspati Shastri CIT Vs. Charitable Trust, Rajendra (Exemption), Jaipur Nagar, Vaishali Nagar, Jaipur LFkk;h ys[kk la-@thvkbZvkj la-@PAN/GIR No.: AACTV 6240 R vihykFkhZ@Appellant izR;FkhZ@Respondent fu/kZkfjrh dh vksj ls@ Assessee by : Sh. Pawan Sharma, proxy for Sh. S.K.Mathur, CA. jktLo dh vksj ls@ Revenue by : Ms. Alka Gautam, CIT.(through V.C). lquokbZ dh rkjh[k@ Date of Hearing : 16/10/2024 mn?kks"k.kk dh rkjh[k@Date of Pronouncement: 16/10/2024 vkns'k@ ORDER PER: Narinder Kumar, Judicial Member
Appellant is feeling aggrieved by order dated 27.09.2023 passed by Learned CIT(E), Jaipur, whereby its application u/s 80G of the Income Tax Act, has been rejected. Along with appeal, appellant also filed an application seeking condonation of delay in filing the appeal. been alleged that trustees of the applicant were not aware of the remedy available in case of rejection of an application u/s 80G(5) of the Act.
Further, it has been alleged that there was no mala fide intention in late filing of the appeal. Accordingly, it has been prayed that delay in filing of the appeal may be condoned. Along with the application seeking condonation of delay, affidavit of one of the trustees -authorized representative of the applicant- has been filed.
Arguments heard. File perused.
Ignorance of law is no excuse. When the applicant alleges that its trustees were not aware of the remedy available, same would be of no avail to the applicant. Law presumes that the citizens are having knowledge of the legal remedies as well.
The impugned order, as noticed above, was passed on 27.09.2023.
As is available from the impugned order passed by ld. CIT(E), there was non-appearance on behalf of the applicant-appellant before ld. CIT(E), except in response to the last notice issued by his office.
The application u/s 80G of the Act came to be rejected on two grounds- of limitation and (ii) because no copy of trust deed/certificate was furnished on behalf of the applicant before ld. CIT(E).
As is available from the impugned order, as regards non-production of copy of the trust deed/certificate, applicant had expressed inability to lay hand thereon or get the same from the concerned institutions.
Said reply is stated to have been submitted to the show cause notice dated 11.09.2023. It was followed by the impugned order which came to be passed soon therefore on 27.09.2023.
On merits, as noticed above, ld. CIT(E) held the application u/s 80G of the Act as not maintainable because of the filing thereof after expiry of more than six months period from the commencement of the activities.
Learned CIT(E) rejected the application under section 80G of the Act while observing that the applicant was required to file application in Form No.10AB, under clause (iii) of first proviso to sub-section (5) of section 80G of the Act within the time period of atleast 6 months prior to expiry of period activities, whichever is earlier.
Learned CIT(E) went on to refer to earlier circulars issued by CBDT from time to time extending the time for filing of form 10AB, and observed that the period of limitation prescribed for filing of application under clause (iii) of the first proviso to section 80G of the Act had not been extended.
As observed in the order, applicant had begun its activities since FY 2020-21 itself. Ultimately, Learned CIT(E) dismissed the application being barred by time.
At this stage, it is pertinent to mention that vide circular No.7 of 25.4.2024, CBDT extended time for filing of suchlike applications. Relevant portion of the circular is extracted hereunder:
“….3. On consideration of the matter, with a view to avoid and mitigate genuine hardship in such cases, the Board, in exercise of the powers conferred under section 119 of the Act, hereby extends the due date of making an application/intimation electronically in (i) Form No. lOA, in case of an application under clause (i) of the first proviso to clause (23C) of section 10 or under sub-clause (i) of clause (ac) of sub-section (1) of section 12A or under clause (i) of the first proviso to sub-section (5) of section 80G or in case of an Act, till 30.06.2024;
(ii) Form No. 10AB, in case of an application under clause (iii) of the first proviso to clause (23C) of section 10 or under sub-clause (iii) of clause (ac) of sub-section (I) of section 12A or under clause (iii) of the first proviso to sub-section (5) of section 80G of the Act, till
30.06.2024.”
It is true that the impugned order came to be passed even before the above-said circular was issued. But, it is significant to note that vide above- said circular, CBDT went on to issue directions in cases where any trust, institution or fund had already made an application in Form No. lOAB, and where the Principal Commissioner or Commissioner has passed an order rejecting such application, on or before the issuance of this Circular, solely on account of the fact that the application was furnished after the due date or that the application had been furnished under the wrong section of the Act, it might furnish a fresh application in Form No. 10AB within the extended time provided in paragraph 3(ii) i.e. 30.06.2024.
Present appeal came to be presented well before 30.6.2024. So, the applicant opted to avail of this remedy of filing of appeal. The applicant application by 30.6.2024 as per the time extended by CBDT. But, it appears that the appellant opted to proceed with the appeal and the application seeking condonation of delay. Otherwise, the applicant could resort to the remedy made available under circular No.7 dated 25.4.2024, while withdrawing this appeal.
No material from the side of the department has been referred to, so as to attribute any mala fide intention in late filing of the appeal. Keeping in view all this, we deem it a fit case for condonation of the delay in filing of the appeal. We order accordingly.
On merits, as noticed above, ld. CIT(E) held the application u/s 80G of the Act as not maintainable because of the filing thereof after expiry of more than six months period from the commencement of the activities.
Learned CIT(E) rejected the application under section 80G of the Act while observing that the applicant was required to file application in Form No.10AB, under clause (iii) of first proviso to sub-section (5) of section 80G of the Act within the time period of atleast 6 months prior to expiry of period of the provisional approval or within 6 months of commencements of its activities, whichever is earlier. time to time extending the time for filing of form 10AB, and observed that the period of limitation prescribed for filing of application under clause (iii) of the first proviso to section 80G of the Act had not been extended.
As observed in the order, applicant had begun its activities since FY 2020-21 itself. Ultimately, Learned CIT(E) dismissed the application being barred by time.
However, in view of the above discussion and having regard to the benevolent directions issued by CBDT vide circular No.7 dated 25.4.2024, we observe that the application under section 80G of the Act deserves to be decided afresh on merits.
The other ground for rejection of the application is that on perusal of the Income and Expenditure Account for the F.Y 2020-21 to 2022-23, ld. CIT(E) noticed that the trust applicant had donated certain amounts to two entities i.e. Shree Chotu Singh Arya Dharmath Samiti & the ICM Educational Institute, on various dates.
As is available from impugned order, show cause notice dated 11.09.2023 was issued by the office of Learned CIT(E), to the applicant to furnish details of the said donations. At the same time, applicant was Act, as regards abovesaid two entities, to whom the donations was stated to have been made.
As is further available from the impugned order, despite said opportunity, the applicant trust did not submit copy of trust deed/certificate u/s 12A r.w.s 80G of the IT Act. Its response to the said show cause notice was that the applicant was unable to collect copy of trust deed/certificate.
In absence of the trust deeds of the above said two entities. Ld.
CIT(E) found it difficult to ascertain as to whether the said trusts had
On behalf of the appellant, it has been submitted that in case sufficient opportunity was granted to the applicant, said copy of trust deeds/certificates could be furnished for perusal and consideration of ld. CIT(E).
In course of arguments, there is no objection from the side of the department to the grant of another opportunity to the applicant trust to comply with the above-said directions of ld. CIT(E) for the purpose of due disposal of the said application, in accordance with law.
11.09.2023 issued by the office of ld. CIT(E) to the applicant trust was the last show cause notice issued shortly before passing of the impugned order which is dated 27.09.2023. We find merit in the contention that in case sufficient time was granted to the applicant to furnish requisite copy of trust deeds/certificates mentioned above, the applicant might have been able to comply with said directions.
Even otherwise, when the applicant expressed inability to produce copy of trust deeds/certificates at its end, ld. CIT(E) could call upon the officers/representatives of the said two entities to produce said documents/certificates, but, no such step appears to have been taken before passing impugned order, which has led to rejection of the application.
In the given facts and circumstances, we deem it fit case where the applicant should be afforded another opportunity to produce or secure production of the copy of trust deeds/certificates u/s 12A r.w.s 80G of the Act before Ld. CIT(E).
In view of the above discussion and findings, the appeal is disposed of and the application u/s 80G of the Act, filed in Form 10AB, is restored to reasonable opportunity to the applicant of being heard.
We order accordingly. Applicant-appellant to comply with the directions to be issued by ld. CIT(E) from time to time, without fail. Order pronounced in the open court on 16/10/2024.
Sd/- Sd/- ¼jkBkSM+ deys'k t;UrHkkbZ ½ ¼ujsUnz dqekj½ (RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI) (NARINDER KUMAR) ys[kk lnL; @Accountant Member U;kf;d lnL;@Judicial Member Tk;iqj@Jaipur fnukad@Dated:- 16/10/2024 *Ganesh Kumar, Sr. PS आदेश की प्रतिलिपि अग्रेf’ात@ब्वचल वf जीम वतकमत वितूंतकमक जवरू 1. The Appellant- Ved-Vachaspati Shastri Charitable Trust, Jaipur 2. izR;FkhZ@ The Respondent- CIT Exemption, Jaipur 3. vk;dj vk;qDr@ The ld CIT vk;dj vk;qDr¼vihy½@The ld CIT(A) 4. विभागीय प्रतिनिधि] आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण] जयपुर@क्त्ए प्ज्Aज्ए Jंपचनत 5. 6. xkMZ QkbZy@ Guard File (ITA No. 419/JP/2024) vkns'kkuqlkj@ By order,
सहायक पंजीकार@Aेेज. त्महपेजतंत