Loading judgment…
Facts
The appellant, Anushree Foundation, a charitable trust, filed an application under section 12AB of the Income Tax Act. The CIT(Exemption) dismissed the application on grounds of incompleteness and failure to provide required documents. The appeal before the Tribunal was filed with a delay of 196 days.
Held
The Tribunal held that while the trustee was negligent in not checking her email account, there were circumstances due to a former employee's departure that led to the delay in receiving the order. The Tribunal deemed it a fit case to condone the delay, subject to costs.
Key Issues
Whether the delay in filing the appeal can be condoned and whether the matter should be remanded to the CIT(E) for fresh consideration.
Sections Cited
12AB, 12A
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, JAIPUR BENCHES,”B-Bench” JAIPUR
Before: SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI, AM & SHRI NARINDER KUMAR, JM vk;dj vihy la-@ITA. No. 95/JPR/2024
vkns'k@ORDER PER: NARINDER KUMAR, J.M.
Appellant claims itself to be a charitable trust. Before Learned CIT(Exemption), it happened to file an application u/s 12AB of the Income Tax Act (hereinafter referred to as the “Act”). On 19.05.2023, Learned CIT(E) dismissed the application on two grounds. The first that Form 10AB was incomplete. The second that the applicant failed to avail of repeated opportunities granted to produce requisite documents/details, and as a result, it could not be determined that 2 Anushree Foundation vs. CIT(E) the applicant was genuinely carrying out charitable activities as per its objects.
Applicant/appellant challenged said order passed by the Learned CIT(E) by filing appeal on 30.01.2024, before this Appellate Tribunal. The appeal came to be presented after a delay of 196 days. Therefore, with the appeal, applicant also submitted an application seeking condonation of delay in filing the appeal.
During the pendency of this matter, applicant was provided an opportunity to file documents by way of evidence, on the point of condonation of delay. Thereupon, applicant has presented affidavit of Shri Vikas Jain (CA) along with copies of certain documents.
Arguments heard. File perused.
Condonation of delay is sought on the ground that the impugned order dated 19.05.2023, even though received from department on the same date, on the email ID of its trustee, could not be noticed on that very day, and rather, the trustee noticed the same much later.
While elaborating the abovesaid grounds, Learned AR for the applicant has submitted that the impugned order was sent by the department on the e-mail ID of Smt. Anushree Dasot, one of the trustees of 3 ITA No. 95/JPR/2024 Anushree Foundation vs. CIT(E) the applicant, but Shri Aditya, one of the employee of the trust, who was handling the work related to e-mails, left the services of the trust, and as such, the impugned order could not be noticed soon after its receipt on the email ID. Learned AR has further submitted that during the days of preparations in relation to audit and return, the trustee of the applicant enquired from the concerned CA, who had filed application U/s 12A of the Act, to know about its status, and that it was on his advice that the trustee checked email account and came to know of the impugned order available on her e-mail ID. As further submitted, it was thereafter that steps were taken to prefer an appeal. The contention is that there is no negligence on the part of the trust, and as such delay in filing the appeal be condoned, and the appeal be disposed of on merits.
Learned DR for the department has opposed the application and countered the submissions put forth by Ld. AR for the applicant. Submission of Learned DR is that the applicant has miserably failed to prove that there was a sufficient cause in non filing of the appeal within prescribed period of limitation, and as such, not only this application 4 Anushree Foundation vs. CIT(E) deserves to be dismissed, even the appeal deserves to be dismissed being barred by limitation.
As noticed above, it is not in dispute that e-mail ID of the trustee, Smt. Anushree Dasot was provided to the department and the impugned order was sent on the said e-mail ID on 19.05.2023 i.e. the day, it was passed. In order to prove the averment that during relevant period, Shri Aditya Medatwal employee of the trustee was handling or dealing with e-mail work of the trust, applicant has subsequently filed copies only of Aadhar Card and PAN card of Shri Aditya Medatwal, resident of Jaipur. It is significant to note that only during arguments, Ld. AR for the applicant submitted that the said employee was appointed at monthly salary of Rs. 5,000/- on 01.11.2022, on part time basis, and that he left the organization on 31.12.2022.
The impugned order is dated 19.05.2023. It was for the applicant to prove as to who was handling e-mail pertaining to the trust-applicant . Shri Aditya Medatwal is stated to have worked with the said organization only upto 30.12.2022. Applicant was or were required to place on record documents as to who used to deal with/handle e-mails relating to the 5 ITA No. 95/JPR/2024 Anushree Foundation vs. CIT(E) trustee, during the relevant period i.e. on or after 19.05.2023. However, no document has been placed on record in this regard. In the course of arguments, Learned AR for the applicant has submitted that due to non checking of her email account by the trustee, the applicant is ready to deposit reasonable costs, and that the delay be condoned.
Nowhere, in the application, it was specified as to on which date Smt. Anushree, the trustee checked her email account. Ultimately, the version put forth by the applicant is that Smt. Anushree Dasot checked her e-mail account on 03.01.2024 and, that is how, she came to know about passing of the impugned order. Before that she is stated to have contacted Shri Vikash Jain (C.A.) who was engaged for the purposes of registration of the trust u/s 12AA of the Act. Said Trustee contacted him in connection with preparations pertaining to audit and return. In support of this averment, affidavit of Shri Vikash Jain (C.A.) has been filed. As per this affidavit, the trustee enquired from him about the status of application u/s 12AA of the Act, and that is how, he advised her to check her e-mail account. In this way, Shri Vikash Jain (C.A.) has supported the claim of the trustee as put forth in the application as well as her own affidavit submitted in support thereof.
6 Anushree Foundation vs. CIT(E) 11. From what has been discussed above, we find that Smt. Anushree Dasot as trustee of the applicant, came to know about the impugned order only on 03.01.2024. In the given facts and circumstances of the case when the applicant claims itself to be a trust, and in view of the impugned order, its application u/s 12AA of the Act, stands dismissed, due to non participation and negligence of the representative of trustee of applicant, the reason being that she was unaware of the receipt of the said order having failed to check her e-mail account , we deem it a fit case to condone the delay in filing of the appeal, but subject to costs. Accordingly, the application seeking condonation of delay is allowed and delay in filing of the appeal is condoned. The applicant is directed to deposit Rs. 2,000/- in Prime Minister’s Relief Funds as costs. On merits 12. The only submission put forth on behalf of the appellant is that Shri Aditya Medatwal concerned employee of the trustee having left the organization on 31.12.2022, the applicant could not participate in the proceedings before the Learned CIT(E) on the dates for which notices are said to have been issued for filing of reply, but not noticed by the trustee.