Loading judgment…
Facts
The appellant, Seva Bharti Samiti, applied for registration under Section 12AB of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The CIT(E) rejected the application and provisional registration. The appeal was filed with a delay, and an application for condonation of delay was submitted. The appellant claimed that the notices from CIT(E) were not received on the provided email address.
Held
The Tribunal held that the appellant sufficiently proved that the notices from the CIT(E) were not served on the provided email address. The principle of natural justice was violated as the applicant was not given a reasonable opportunity to be heard before the rejection of the application. The delay in filing the appeal was condoned.
Key Issues
Whether the rejection of the application for registration under Section 12AB was justified without proper service of notices and opportunity of being heard. Whether the delay in filing the appeal should be condoned.
Sections Cited
12AB, 10AB
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, JAIPUR BENCHES,” B-Bench” JAIPUR
vkns'k@ORDER PER: NARINDER KUMAR, JUDICIAL MEMBER In order to seek registration u/s 12AB of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the “Act”), an application is required to be submitted to Learned CIT(E), in the prescribed format i.e. Form No. 10AB. The appellant-herein also submitted such application under the said provision, on 25.09.2023. Vide impugned order, dated 11.03.2024, Learned CIT(E) rejected the application and also held that consequently, provisional registration also Seva Bharti Samit vs. CIT(E) stood lapsed and cancelled. That is how, the appellant is before this Appellant Tribnunal.
Learned CIT(E) rejected the application u/s 12AB of the Act on the following three grounds:- Incomplete Form 10AB. Rajasthan Public Trust Act, 1959. Genuineness of Activities.
The impugned order having been passed on 11.03.2024, the applicant was required to file an appeal before this Appellate Tribunal within the prescribed period of limitation. The appeal having been presented on 23.05.2024, the Registry reported that the appeal was presented 13 days after the prescribed of limitation.
The appellant submitted with the appeal itself an application seeking condonation of delay. Firstly, said application came to be argued. 5. Ld. AR for the applicant-appellant has submitted that for communication of correspondence, e-mail address submitted to the department was: ashoknatani1234@gmail.com, but, neither any notice nor the impugned order rejecting the application u/s 12AB of the Act, was received on the said e-mail address, what to say of communication of hard copy thereof at the registered address of the applicant-Samiti. In this Seva Bharti Samit vs. CIT(E) regard, Ld. AR for the appellant has referred to the averments made in the application and attested affidavit of Shri Gopal Lal Agarwal, Secretary of the appellant-Samiti. 6. From the impugned order, it transpires that notices dated 28.12.2023, 23.01.2024 and 02.02.2024 are stated to have been issued by office of the Learned CIT(E) to the assessee at the e-mail address presented in the application requiring the appellant to submit certain documents/explanations. Learned CIT(E) observed in the impugned order that the applicant did not comply with any of the three notices referred to above. 7. A perusal of copy of the application u/s 10AB of the Act submitted for registration would reveal that in para 9(a) details of 15 members of the applicant-Samiti were given. Last column of said details pertains to e-mail addresses of the said 15 members. When Learned CIT(E) observed in the impugned order about communication of the notices at the e-mail address provided in the application u/s 12AB of the Act, admittedly from the records, it cannot be said as to at which of the 15 e-mail addresses, the three notices were sent by the office of Learned CIT(E).
Seva Bharti Samit vs. CIT(E) It is true that at serial No. 6 of the details of the members of the Samiti, there are particulars of Ashok Natani, a member of the Samiti, with his e-mail address ashoknatani1234@gmail.com. As per affidavit filed with the application seeking condonation of delay, said e-mail address was furnished to the department, and to the office of CIT(E), for communication, but, neither any notice nor the impugned order was received at the said e- mail address. The department has not placed on record any material to suggest that notices and the impugned order were served/communicated by the office of the Learned CIT(E) at the said e-mail address i.e. of Ashok Natani, the member. In absence thereof, it cannot be said that this is a case of due service of the notices & the impugned order, at the given e-mail address. As alleged in the application seeking codonation of delay on 30.04.2024, the factum of rejection of the application u/s 12AB of the Act came to notice from the site of the department, whereupon the concerned CA was contacted for the purpose of filing of appeal, same was drafted and presented.
In view of the above discussion, we find merit in the contention raised by the applicant that there was sufficient cause for non filing of this appeal Seva Bharti Samit vs. CIT(E) within prescribed period of limitation. Consequently, this application seeking condonation of delay is allowed.
On merits, it has been argued on behalf of the appellant that when none of the three notices can be said to have been served upon the applicant at the given e-mail address, impugned order deserves to be set aside. In view of the above discussion, on the basis of material available on record, we find merit in the contention raised on behalf of the appellant- samiti that none of the three notices stated to have been issued by the office of the Learned CIT(E) can be said to have been served upon the applicant at the given e-mail address, particularly, when from the side of the department there is nothing to suggest that notices were served at the given email address. When no reasonable opportunity was granted to the applicant of being heard before rejection of the application, we find that this is a case where one of the principles of natural justice stands violated. The applicant- Samiti deserves reasonable opportunity, of being heard. Result 10. For the foregoing discussion and the findings recorded above, this appeal is disposed off, and while setting aside the impugned order, the