ARJUN TARA MAYA FOUNDATION,JAIPUR vs. CIT EXEMPTION, JAIPUR

आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण] जयपुर न्यायपीठ] जयपुर IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, JAIPUR BENCHES,”B” JAIPUR Mk0 ,l- lhrky{eh] U;kf;d lnL; ,oa Jh jkBksM deys'k t;UrHkkbZ] ys[kk lnL; ds le{k BEFORE: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI, JM & SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI, AM vk;dj vihy la-@ITA No. 622 & 630/JPR/2024 Arjun Tara Maya Foundation cuke CITE-Exemption, Vs. P. No. G-1-230-231, IT Park, EPIP Jaipur. RIICO Industrial Area, Sitapur, Jaipur. LFkk;hys[kk la-@thvkbZvkj la-@PAN/GIR No.:AADCJ5571B vihykFkhZ@Appellant izR;FkhZ@Respondent fu/kZkfjrh dh vksjls@Assesseeby :Shri Ashok Kumar Gupta (Adv.) jktLo dh vksjls@Revenue by: Shri Anil Dhaka (CIT) lquokbZ dh rkjh[k@Date of Hearing :03/07/2024 mn?kks"k.kk dh rkjh[k@Date of Pronouncement: 11/09/2024 vkns'k@ORDER

PER: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI, J.M. These are two appeals filed by the assessee against orders of the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemption), Jaipur [herein after referred to as “CIT(E)”] both dated 23.08.2023passed under section 12AB and 80G of the Income Tax Act, 1961 respectively.

2.1 In ITA No. 622/JPR/2024 the assessee has raised following grounds: - “1.The Impugned order u/s 12AB of the Act dated 23/08/2023 is bad in law and on facts, without providing adequate & reasonable opportunity of being heard, being without jurisdiction and for various other reasons and hence the same may kindly be quashed.

2 ITA No. 622&630/JPR/2024 Arjun Tara Maya Foundation vs. CIT(E) 2. The Ld. CIT(E) erred in law as well as on the facts of the case in rejecting the application for granting Registration/approval u/s 12AB. The rejection so made and refusal to grant Registration/approval u/s 12AB is contrary to the provisions of law and facts of the case. The same kindly may be quashed.

2.2 In ITA No. 630/JPR/2024 the assessee has raised following grounds: - “1. The Impugned order u/s 80G/10AB of the Act dated 23/08/2023 is bad in law and on facts, without providing adequate & reasonable opportunity of being heard, being without jurisdiction and for various other reasons and hence the same may kindly be quashed. 2. The Ld. CIT(E) erred in law as well as on the facts of the case in rejecting the application for granting Registration/approval u/s 80G. The rejection so made and refusal to grant Registration/approval u/s 80G is contrary to the provisions of law and facts of the case. The same kindly may be quashed. 3. That the impugned order so passed was in the contravention of the law prevalent at the relevant point of time and also on fact and hence may kindly be quashed. The Id. CIT(E) may be directed to grant Registration/approval from the date of application. 4. The appellant prays your honour indulgences to add, amend or alter of or any of the grounds of the appeal on or before the date of hearing.

3.1 At the outset of the hearing of the appeals it is noted the appeals in ITA No. 622 & 630/JPR/2024 filed are delayed by 195 days. The ld. AR of the assessee submitted petition for condonation of delay with following prayer:-

3 ITA No. 622&630/JPR/2024 Arjun Tara Maya Foundation vs. CIT(E) “1. In this connection it is submitted that the applicant is Trust/Society. The assessee has filed application before CIT(Exemption), Jaipur for registration u/ 12AB on 17/02/2023. The Id. CIT(E) rejected the application of the assessee on dt. 23/08/2023 on the reason incomplete form 10AB and in absence of proving genuineness of activities. The order was received on portal on dt. 23/08/2023, which was not served upon the assessee physically. However as per date of order the appeal was to be filed on or before 22/10/2023 but the same is being filed on by 03/05/2024 i.e by delay of about 193 days. Although actually there is no delay if following facts are being considered. 2. The reason of late filing was that the impugned order was sent on the email id:- SAHABDUBEY@GMAIL.COM which belongs to Shri Sahab Debey one of employee of the trust which he could not use from long time therefore could not visit such mail and after filling the application u/s 10AB he did not visit a single time and the trustee of the trust are not much aware about information technology therefore not check the mails as well as income tax portal frequently. The order was sent on dt. 23/08/2023. Thereafter the assessee again approached the counsel for getting approval u/s 12AA and the same application again filed by the counsel on dated 20/12/2023 inadvertently without knowing that one application has already been filed and same has been rejected by the department. When the Show Cause notice has come to the assessee on dated 09/04/2024 for rejecting/infructuous of such second application than it has come to the notice of the assessee that he had already applied for getting registration and same has been rejected therefore he immediately approached to file this appeal before your honor. 3. That thereafter counsel has started to prepare the appeal and the appeal has been prepared on 01/05/2024 and sent to us for sign. 4. Thus there was no negligence's of either assessee nor the counsels. Thus due to the above the appeal could not be filed within time. In support of these contention an affidavit of the trustee is enclosed. 5. It is submitted that the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Collector, Land & Acquisition v. Mst. Katiji& Others (1987) 167 ITR 471 (SC) has advocated for a very liberal approach while considering a case for condonation of delay. The following observations of the Hon'ble Court are notable: "The legislature has conferred the power to condone delay by enacting section 5 of the Limitation Act 1963 in order to enable the Courts to do substantial justice to parties by disposing of matters on 'merits'. The expression sufficient cause' employed by the legislature is adequately elastic to enable the Courts to apply the law in a meaningful manner which subserves the ends of justice-that being the life- purpose of the existence of the institution of Courts. It is common knowledge that this Court has been making a

4 ITA No. 622&630/JPR/2024 Arjun Tara Maya Foundation vs. CIT(E) justifiably liberal approach in matters instituted in this Court. But, the message does not appear to have percolated down to all the other Courts in the hierarchy." The said judgment is a leading case on the subject and has a binding force on all the officers subordinate thereto. 6. The action or inaction by an assessee, on the advice of its counsel, whether correct or incorrect, if caused a delay, has been held to be reasonable and sufficient cause in these cases also. Kindly refer N. Balakrishnan v. M. Krishna Murthy(1998) 7 SCC 123 published in 30 BCAJ 922, Concord of India Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Smt. Nirmala Devi and Anothers 118 ITR 507. That it is also settled that for the mistake of the Counsel, the party cannot be suffered. Reliance on Mahaveer Prasad Jain v/s CIT, 172 ITR 331(MP), Concord India Insurance Co. Ltd v/s Smt. Nirmala Devi, 118 ITR 507(SC), Kripa Shankar v/s CIT/CWT 181 ITR 183(All), N. Balakrishnan v/s Μ. Krishanmurthy 7 SSC123. 7. The Hon'ble Jaipur Bench of ITAT has also condoned the delay in the case of Ganesh Himalaya Pvt.Ltd. v. ACIT 22 Tax World 415 (Jp) where the filing was delayed because the son of the Managing Director had become victim of some misdeeds committed by the Holigans, particularly when on the similar points in the earlier four years, the appeals were filed in time. In the instant case also, the appeal could not be filed in time because of the above reasons and time taking a various process which were bonafide and was a sufficient cause and there was no melafide intention. 8. Recent Decision of Apex Court in a recent decision, the apex court have again reiterated that the expression "sufficient cause" should receive a liberal construction. The Hon'ble court have also held that advancing of substantial justice should be of prime importance. Kindly refer Vedbai vs. Shantaram Baburam Patil & Others 253 ITR 798 (SC). Prayer: In view of above facts and circumstance and with the sympathy and settled legal position, the delay so caused may kindly be condoned.”

5 ITA No. 622&630/JPR/2024 Arjun Tara Maya Foundation vs. CIT(E) In support of the contentions raised the Authorized signatory filed an affidavit to support the contentions raised in the prayer for condonation of delay in filing the appeal so filed.

3.2 The ld. AR of the assessee appearing in this appeals submitted that the assessee who serious on his duties and the delay of 195 days is on account of the fact that employee whose e-mail ID given has left the job assessee was not aware about the rejection order and have again applied. When that application rejected the assessee came to know about the rejection of the first application and thus there is a delay in bringing the present appeal. Based on the judicial precedent cited in the application. The ld. AR of the assessee prayed to condone the delay.

3.3 During the course of hearing, the ld. DR objected to assessee’s application for condonation of delay. The ld. DR submitted after filing application the assessee never bothered and therefore, the appeal is required to be dismissed. However, if at all a lenient view is to be taken then the assessee has to pay cost.

3.4 We have heard both the parties and perused the materials available on record. The Bench note that the assessee has reasonable cause for condonation of delay of 195 days as the employee did not update the assessee. At the same time, office bearer of the trust simply waiting of response and has not bothered for the

6 ITA No. 622&630/JPR/2024 Arjun Tara Maya Foundation vs. CIT(E) application so made even twice without checking the receipt of first one. Looking to these factum of the matter we condone the delay but subject to payment of cost of Rs. 2500/- for 12AB application and same for 80G to be paid in the Prime Minister Relief Fund within 30 days from the receipt of this order.

7 ITA No. 622&630/JPR/2024 Arjun Tara Maya Foundation vs. CIT(E) matter, therefore, the application for registration u/s 12AB was rejected for the following reasons:-  Incomplete form 10AB.  Genuineness of activities. 4.1 Whereas in the application for registration u/s. 80G of the Act the ld. CIT(E) noted that as the assessee not registered under section 12AB of the Act which is the precondition for granting approval u/s 80G of the Act and since that application was rejected consequent to that application for registration u/s. 80G of the Act was also rejected.

8 ITA No. 622&630/JPR/2024 Arjun Tara Maya Foundation vs. CIT(E) 7. We have heard the rival contentions and perused material available on record. The Bench noted that ld. CIT(E) has rejected the applications of the assessee u/s 12AB and u/s 80G(5) of the Act as narrated above in the respective orders that the applicant failed to submit the details called for. On that aspect of the ld. AR for the assessee submitted that there were sufficient reasons on account of non receipt of notices assessee could not submit the required details. As regards the recognition of 80G the same was rejected as the assessee was not granted the registration u/s. 12AB. Thus, ongoing through aforesaid aspect of the matter we are of the considered view that if the assessee be given a chance to submit the details and clarify the issue raised by ld. CIT(E). Considering the fact that principles of natural justice demands one chance to the assessee to file details before Ld. CIT(E). At the same time ld. CIT(E) shall grant sufficient opportunity of being heard in respect of both the applications of the assessee. The Bench does not want to go into merit of the case but it is imperative that the assessee must be provided adequate opportunity of being heard by the ld. CIT(E). In view of this fact, the Bench feels that the assessee should be given one more chance to contest the case before the ld. CIT(E) and the assessee is directed to produce all the relevant papers

9 ITA No. 622&630/JPR/2024 Arjun Tara Maya Foundation vs. CIT(E) concerning both the applications so filed before the ld. CIT(E) to settle the dispute raised hereinabove. 8. Before parting, we may make it clear that our decision to restore the matter back to the file of the ld. CIT(E) shall in no way be construed as having any reflection or expression on the merits of the dispute, which shall be adjudicated by the ld. CIT(E) independently in accordance with law. In the result, the appeals of the assessee in ITA No. 622 &630/JPR/2024 are allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced in the open court on 11/09/2024. Sd/- Sd/- ¼jkBksM deys'k t;UrHkkbZ ½ ¼MkWa-,l-lhrky{eh½ (RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI) (Dr. S. Seethalakshmi) ys[kk lnL; @Accountant Member U;kf;d lnL;@Judicial Member Tk;iqj@Jaipur fnukad@Dated:- 11/09/2024 *Santosh आदेश की प्रति लिपि अग्रेf’ात@ब्वचल वf जीम वतकमत वितूंतकमक जवरू The Appellant- Arjun Tara Maya Foundation, Jaipur. 1. 2. izR;FkhZ@ The Respondent- CIT(E), Jaipur. 3. vk;djvk;qDr@ The ld CIT 4. vk;dj vk;qDr¼vihy½@The ld CIT(A) 5. विभागीय प्रतिनिधि] आयकरअपीलीय अधिकरण] जयपुर@क्त्ए प्ज्Aज्ए Jंपचनत 6. xkMZQkbZy@ Guard File ITA No. 622&630/JPR/2024) vkns'kkuqlkj@ By order,

सहायक पंजीकार@Aेेजज. त्महपेजतंत