Loading judgment…
No AI summary yet for this case.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, JAIPUR BENCHES,”A” JAIPUR
Before: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI, JM & SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI, AM
आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण] जयपुर न्यायपीठ] जयपुर IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, JAIPUR BENCHES,”A” 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. 97 & 98/JPR/2024 fu/kZkj.k o"kZ@Assessment Years : 2022-23 cuke Shri Padam Prabhu Jain ITO, Aushdhalaya Vikas Samiti Vs. Ward, Mehtab Singh Ka Nohra, Alwar. Alwar. LFkk;h ys[kk la-@thvkbZvkj la-@PAN/GIR No.: AAFAS9763G vihykFkhZ@Appellant izR;FkhZ@Respondent fu/kZkfjrh dh vksj ls@ Assessee by : Shri P.C. Parwal (C.A.) jktLo dh vksj ls@ Revenue by : Shri Arvind Kumar (CIT) a lquokbZ dh rkjh[k@ Date of Hearing : 29/04/2024 mn?kks"k.kk dh rkjh[k@Date of Pronouncement : 08 /05/2024 vkns'k@ ORDER PER: RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI, AM These two appeals arise out of order passed by Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemption), Jaipur [hereinafter referred to as ld. CIT(E) ] both dated 23.11.2022. The appeal filed in is against the rejection order passed for registration u/s. 12AB while the second one in ITA No. 98/Jodh/2024 is against the rejection of recognition u/s. 80G of the Income Tax Act, 1961 [ here in after referred to as Act ].
2 & 98/JPR/2024 Padam Prabhu Jain Aushdhalaya Vikas Samti vs. CIT(E) 2.1 In ITA No. 97/JPR/2024 the assessee has raised following grounds: - “
1. Under the fact and circumstances of the case the CIT Exemption, Jaipur has rejected registration u/s 12AB deserved to be allowed.
2. The assessee craves the right to add, alter or amend the ground of appeal. 3. Necessary cost be awarded to the assessee.” 2.2 In the assessee has raised following grounds:- “
Under the fact and circumstances of the case the CIT Exemption, Jaipur has rejected registration u/s 80G deserved to be allowed.
2. The assessee craves the right to add, alter or amend the ground of appeal.
3. Necessary cost be awarded to the assessee.”
3. First, we take up the appeal of the assessee in ITA No. 97/JPR/2024. At the outset of the hearing of the appeal it is noted the appeals in ITA No. 97 & 98/Jodh/2024 filed are delayed by 374 days. The ld. AR of the assessee relied upon the petition for condonation of delay with following prayers in ITA No. 97/JPR/2024:-
“We hope this letter finds you in good health and high spirits. We are writing to humbly request the condonation of the delay in filing my appeal against the order for rejection of our application u/s 12AB of Income Tax Act. We are aware that timeline adherence is of utmost importance in legal matters, and I deeply regret any inconvenience caused by my delayed submission of appeal against the order dated 23.11.2022.
3 & 98/JPR/2024 Padam Prabhu Jain Aushdhalaya Vikas Samti vs. CIT(E) Appellant understand that adherence to deadlines is crucial in maintaining the integrity and efficiency of our legal system, and fully acknowledge the importance of timeliness in filing any appeals. He assure you that this incident was an isolated occurrence, and he is committed to ensuring such delays do not happen in the future. Our institution Shri Padam Prabhu Jain Aushdhalaya Vikas Samiti is a charitable and religious trust applied for 12A registration on dated 03.03.2022. Provisional registration in Form No. 10AC granted u/s 12A(1)(ac)(vi) on dated 10.03.2022. The samiti applied for permanent registration on 27.05.2022 in Form No. 10AB. The CIT Exemption has rejected our application in form No. 10AD on dated 23.11.2022. The Commissioner of Income Tax Exemption passed an order on dated 23.11.2022 but the rejection came to our know when we have received notice u/s 144B of the Act on dated 28.06.2023. He approached to the consultant to reply the notice and thereafter cancellation of the registration came to our knowledge. The order for cancellation of registration was not served to the registered mail id. The assesse has submitted for fresh registration in lieu of cancellation of earlier registration as per the CBDT Circular No. 6 dt 24.05.2023 containing clarification regarding provisions relating to Charitable and Religious Trusts. The due date for furnishing the application by the charitable or religious trusts and institutions for re- registration/approval has been extended from 25.11.2022 to 30.09.2023. The due date for furnishing application for regular registration/approval by provisionally registered/approved trusts or institutions has also been extended from 30.09.2022 to 30.09.2023 for registration under section 10(23C) and 12AB of the Income-tax Act, 1961. We have submitted an application for registration but Income Tax portal refused to take our application with the remark that application is already filed with the department. Hence not accepted. An application for reheard for our application and provide one more opportunity for submission of details and documents filed before the CIT exemption. This application is pending before the CIT Exemption. Meanwhile a SCN was issued by the assessment unit Income Tax Department on dated 25.01.2024 in response to income tax proceedings u/s 144B.
4 & 98/JPR/2024 Padam Prabhu Jain Aushdhalaya Vikas Samti vs. CIT(E) Thank you for considering my appeal for condonation. He is sincerely grateful for your understanding and assistance in this matter and look forward to a favorable resolution that will enable us to present the case before authorities. There is no mala fide intension on the part of assessee for delay in filing the appeal before your good self. You are requested to kindly condone the delay and accept our appeal. 3.1 The ld. AR of the assessee in support of the arguments in support of condonation delay submitted that the assessee was served the notice dated 20.10.2022, but the subsequent two notice dated 07.11.2022 and 11.11.2022 was not served to the assessee. In support of these contention he filed the print out of the screen shot of Gmail account wherein the first notice served but there is no subsequent notice and even the copy of the order. The ld. AR of the assessee appearing in both the appeals submitted that on account of delay of 374 days took place in filing the appeals and there was no wrong intention by the assessee to file the appeals late. Considering the request of the assessee and various judicial precedents wherein the courts has considered and ignored technicality of the reasons and has considered the delay. Even the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Collector, Land & Acquisition Vs. Mst. Katiji& Others 167 ITR 471(SC) directed the other courts to consider the liberal approach in deciding the petition for condonation as the assessee is not going to achieve any benefit for the delay in fact the assessee is at risk.
5 & 98/JPR/2024 Padam Prabhu Jain Aushdhalaya Vikas Samti vs. CIT(E) 3.2 On the other hand ld. DR supported the order of the ld. CIT(E) and submitted that three notices were served to the assessee but the same was not replied by the assessee and therefore, the may not condoned. But at the same time when the question of service of the subsequent notice he has not opposed the contention of the ld. AR of the assessee. But at the same time he submitted the bench may decide this issue as deem fit and proper in the case.
3.3 We have heard the rival contentions and perused the petition advanced by the assessee for condonation of delay. The Bench feels that the delay of 374 days made by the assessee have reasonable cause in filing the appeals that the subsequent notice was not served on the email id and considering that non disputed facts we considered that the assessee has reasonable cause in not bringing the appeal in time considering the decision of the apex court in the case of Collector, Land & Acquisition Vs. Mst. Katiji& Others 167 ITR 471(SC). Thus, the delay is condoned.
First, we take up the appeals of the assessee in wherein the brief facts of the case is that the assessee trust has applied in Form No. 10AB seeking registration 6 ITA No. 97 & 98/JPR/2024 Padam Prabhu Jain Aushdhalaya Vikas Samti vs. CIT(E) u/s 12AB of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The said application was filed online on 25.05.2022. A letter / notice dated 20.10.2022 was issued at the e-mail/address provided in the application requiring the assessee to submit certain documents/explanations by 31.10.2022. However, no reply was filed by the assessee. Thereafter, a reminder letter was also issued on 07.11.2022 to submit certain documents / explanations by 11.11.2022. In view of principle of natural justice, one more opportunity was provided vide letter dated 11.11.2022 as final opportunity through which date of submission was fixed as 16.11.2022. But this time also on the given date no reply was filed by the assessee. Since it is a limitation matter, and the assessee has not submitted the details the application filed by the assessee was rejected.
So far as the appeal in ITA No. 98/JPR/2024 we note that the said appeal is against the rejection of recognition of section 80G of the Act and same was also rejected on the ground that the assessee is not registered under u/s. 12AB of the Act and therefore, the assessee was not considered as eligible for registration and the liberty was given to the assessee to re apply.
7 & 98/JPR/2024 Padam Prabhu Jain Aushdhalaya Vikas Samti vs. CIT(E) 6. Feeling dissatisfied with the above order of the ld. CIT(E) the assessee has preferred the present appeal before the Tribunal on the grounds as stated in para 2.1 & 2.2 above. In support of the various grounds so raised by the ld. AR of the assessee reiterated the written submission which is reproduced hereinbelow: - “Facts:-
1. 1. The assessee society was incorporated on 21.01.1983 under Rajasthan Society Registration Act, 1958 (PB 1) with the main object of providing free ayurvedic treatment and medicines to all citizens without any discrimination between cast and creed (PB 2- 9).
2. It filed an application for provisional registration u/s 12A in Form No.10A on 03.03.2022 and for provisional approval u/s 80G on 04.03.2022. The provisional registration u/s 12A was granted vide order dt. 10.03.2022 from AY 2022-23 to 2024-25 and provisional approval u/s 80G was granted vide order dt. 11.03.2022 from AY 2022-23 to 2024-25. Thereafter it filed application in Form No.10AB for grant of permanent registration u/s 12A(1)(ac)(iii) on 27.05.2022 (PB 10-17) and for grant of permanent approval u/s 80G(5) on 30.05.2022 (PB 18-25). Along with the application it filed self-certified copy of the trust deed, registration certificate and the financial statements.
3. The Ld. CTT(E) observed that assessee has not complied with the notices dt. 20.10.2022, 07.11.2022 & 11.11.2022. Thereafter he held that application in Form No.10AB filed by the assessee is not complete as self certified copy of the existing order granting registration u/s 12A and note on activities of the applicant is not filed, the assessee has not submit any documents regarding establishment of trust/institution such as ownership proof of the premises from which the trust/institution is running its activities, bank account statement of the institution & donation list and the genuineness of the activities could not be ascertained. Accordingly he rejected the assessee's claim of registration u/s 12AB of the Act vide order dt. 23.11.2022. Further the application for approval u/s 80G was also rejected vide order dt. 23.11.2022 on the ground that approval u/s 80G cannot be granted without registration u/s 12AB. Submission:-
8 & 98/JPR/2024 Padam Prabhu Jain Aushdhalaya Vikas Samti vs. CIT(E) 1. It is submitted that assessee for the first time applied for the provisional registration us 12A of the Act on 03.03.2022 for which provisional registration was granted vide order dt. 10.03.2022. This registration was available with the CIT(E). It was not cartier registered u/s 12A of the Act. Hence question of furnishing self certified copy of the existing order granting registration u/s 12A do not arise. So far as the note on activities is concerned, Form 10AB does not require to provide such detail (PB 16). Hence for these reasons it is incorrect on part of CIT(E) to held that application filed by assessee is found to be not complete.
So far as ownership proof of premises from where the activities of trust is carried out, it may be noted from the Balance Sheet filed by the assessee that assesse owns its own building at Mehtab Singh ka Nohra, Alwar. The detail of the bank account is given in the application form itself (PB 13) and the genuineness of activities carried out by the trust is verifiable from the Income & Expenditure A/c (PB 26-38). In any case since the notices issued by Ld. CIT(E) did not came to the notice of assessee, the required details could not be submitted. Further approval u/s 80G was rejected on the ground that registration u/s 12AB has been denied. In view of above, it is prayed that one more opportunity be provided to the assessee to submit the required details/documents to the Ld. CIT(E) and therefore the matter be set aside to Ld. CIT(E).” 6.1 To support the various grounds so raised by the ld. AR of the assessee and has relied upon the following evidences in support of the contentions so raised:-
S. No. Particulars Pg No.
Copy of registration certificate under Rajasthan Society 1 Registration Act, 1958 2. Copy of the constitution of society 2-9 3. Copy of Form 10AB dt. 25.05.2022 for registration u/s 10-17 12AB 4. Copy of Form 10AB dt. 30.05.2022 for approval u/s 80G(5) 18-25 5. Copy of Balance Sheet and Income & Expenditure A/c of 26-27 Padam Prabhu Jain Aushdhalaya Vikas Samiti for FY 9 & 98/JPR/2024 Padam Prabhu Jain Aushdhalaya Vikas Samti vs. CIT(E) 2021-22 6. Copy of Balance Sheet and Income & Expenditure A/c of 28-29 Padam Prabhu Jain Aushdhalaya for FY 2021-22 7. Details of donation receipt for FY 2021-22 30-34 8. Copy of Balance Sheet, Income & Expenditure A/c and 35-35B Receipt & Payment A/c of Padam Prabhu Jain Aushdhalaya Vikas Samiti for FY 2020-21 Copy of Balance Sheet and Income & Expenditure A/c of 9. 36-37 Padam Prabhu Jain Aushdhalaya for FY 2020-21 10. Copy of Balance Sheet, Income & Expenditure A/c and 38-38B Receipt & Payment A/c of Padam Prabhu Jain Aushdhalaya Vikas Samiti for FY 2019-20 11. Copy of Balance Sheet and Income & Expenditure A/c of 39-40 Padam Prabhu Jain Aushdhalaya for FY 2019-20 12. Note on activities carried out by the trust along with 41-43 evidence 13. Affidavit dt. 14.02.2024 for condonation of delay in filing 44-47 the appeal 6.2 During the course of hearing, the ld. AR of the assessee vehemently argued that both the application was not considered and assessee was not given proper opportunity of being heard. The ld. AR of the assessee demonstrated by filling the screen short of the Gamil account wherein only the first notice was served but the alleged subsequent notices were not served. The ld. DR did not controvert this fact but at the same time submitted that when first notice served why not the assessee is claiming not receipt of the other notice. If the assessee get chance to be rehead
Per contra, the ld. DR relied on the orders of the ld. CIT(E) and submitted that the assessee even though three opportunities were given has not submitted required details and therefore, the plea of the assessee is not maintainable.
We have heard the rival contentions and perused material available on record. The Bench noted that the ld. CIT(E) rejected the registration u/s. 12AB of the Act only on the reason that the assessee has not furnished even though three notices were issued to the assessee and the order thus was ex-parte for registration u/s. 12AB of the Act and at the same recognition for 80G was rejected as the assessee was not registered for 12AB. The ld. CIT(E) also noted that the assessee not complied with the notice and has not filed the details called for. On the other hand the ld. AR of the assessee filed the screen shot of the Gmail account upon which the first notice was served but the subsequent two notice as alleged to have been issued were not served on the email id where the first notice was served. Thus, the bench noted that the reasons advanced by the ld. AR of the 11 & 98/JPR/2024 Padam Prabhu Jain Aushdhalaya Vikas Samti vs. CIT(E) assessee are correct and the orders have been passed against the assessee against the principles of nature justice. Considering these peculiar facts of the case that the assessee was in fact issued only one notice and the subsequent two notice were not served to the assessee. Thus, without considering the merits of the case the bench feels that the assessee must be provided adequate opportunity of being heard and be given a fair chance by the ld. CIT(E) to cure the defect / non submission of the certain information called for from the assessee. In the light of this aspect of the case, matter, 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 concerning both the application so filed before the ld. CIT(E) to settle the dispute raised hereinabove. It is also noteworthy to mention that approval u/s 80G cannot be granted without registration u/s 12AB of the Act. In view of the above, both the appeals of the assessee relating to registration u/s. 12AB and 80G of the Act are restored back before the ld. CIT(E) for afresh consideration for which the assessee shall submit the 12 ITA No. 97 & 98/JPR/2024 Padam Prabhu Jain Aushdhalaya Vikas Samti vs. CIT(E) desired information / documents before the ld. CIT(E). Based on the discussion recorded herein above both the appeal of the assessee are allowed for statistical purpose.
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 & 98/JPR/2024 are allowed for statistical purposes.
Order pronounced in the open Court on 08/05/2024.
Sd/- Sd/- ¼ Mk0 ,l- lhrky{eh ½ ¼ jkBksM deys'k t;UrHkkbZ ½ (Dr. S. Seethalakshmi) (Rathod Kamlesh Jayantbhai) U;kf;d lnL;@Judcial Member ys[kk lnL;@Accountant Member Tk;iqj@Jaipur fnukad@Dated:- 08/05/2024 *Santosh आदेश की प्रतिलिपि अग्रेf’ात@ब्वचल वf जीम वतकमत वितूंतकमक जवरू 1. vihykFkhZ@The Appellant- Shri Padam Prabhu Jain Aushdhalaya Vikas Samiti, Alwr. 2. izR;FkhZ@ The Respondent- CIT(E), Jaipur.