Loading judgment…
No AI summary yet for this case.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, JAIPUR BENCHES “A”, JAIPUR
Before: SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN, JM & SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI, AM vk;dj vihy la-@ITA No. 39/JP/2021
आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण] जयपुर न्यायपीठ] जयपुर IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, JAIPUR BENCHES “A”, JAIPUR Jh lanhi x®lkÃa] U;kf;d lnL; ,oa Jh jkBkSM+ deys'k t;arHkkbZ] ys[kk lnL; ds le{k BEFORE SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN, JM & SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI, AM vk;dj vihy la-@ITA No. 39/JP/2021 fu/kZkj.k o"kZ@Assessment Year :...................... M/s Balaji Charitable Trust, cuke CIT(Exemptions), Vs. 117, Industrial Area, Jhotwara, Jaipur Jaipur. LFkk;h ys[kk la-@thvkbZvkj la-@PAN/GIR No.: AAATB 2683 G vihykFkhZ@Appellant izR;FkhZ@Respondent fu/kZkfjrh dh vksj ls@ Assessee by : Shri Anant Kasliwal (Adv.) jktLo dh vksj ls@ Revenue by : Shri Sanjay Dhariwal (CIT-DR) lquokbZ dh rkjh[k@ Date of Hearing : 07/03/2022 mn?kks"k.kk dh rkjh[k@ Date of Pronouncement : 14/03/2022 ORDER PER: SANDEEP GOSAIN, J.M. This appeal has been filed by the assessee against the order of the ld. CIT(Exemptions), Jaipur dated 23/03/2021 passed U/s 80G(5)(vi) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short, the Act) wherein following grounds have been raised.
“1. Because, the ld. CIT(Exemption) has committed a grave of fact and law in having passed the order dated 23/03/2021 rejecting the appellant’s application for renewal of exemption u/s 80G. 2. Because, the order impugned suffers from utter non-application of mind as the same has been framed under an impression of the appellant having withdrawn its application u/s 10G, whereas the
2 ITA 39/JP/2021_ M/s Balaji Charitable Trust Vs CIT(E) appellant had withdrawn its application filed in form No. 10A, filed on the same date. 3. Because, the order impugned, unless withdrawn, shall result in gross injustice to the petitioner as also its donors, without there being any deficiency/violation in the working of the humble appellant trust. The humble appellant craves leave of this Hon’ble Tribunal to add, to alter, amend or substitute any of the aforesaid grounds as also to raise any additional grounds of appeal at or any time before the final hearing of this appeal.” 2. There is delay of 17 days in filing this appeal, for which the assessee filed an application for condonation of delay and the contents of application for condonation of delay reads as under: “1. That, the connected appeal is directed against an order dated the 23rd March, 2021 passed u/s 80G(5) of the income Tax Act,1961 whereby an application for the renewal of exemption has been rejected on an erroneous premise that the said application was withdrawn by the appellant applicant.
That, the impugned order of the CIT Exemption was communicated to the appellant trust electronically on the day it was framed.
That, the trustee looking after taxation and administrative work of the trust was stuck up with treatment of his daughter who had tested positive for Covid-19 for almost five weeks in April & May, 2021 due to which necessary action for filing the appeal could not be taken in time resulting in this delay of 17 days in filing the appeal.
That, e-filing of appeals before this Hon'ble Tribunal has not yet become function. Besides, the State Administration has imposed a complete curfew since 17th April, 2021 due to which human movement even within the District has become substantially curtailed. As such, this appeal is
3 ITA 39/JP/2021_ M/s Balaji Charitable Trust Vs CIT(E) being filed only after relaxation in Covid-19 SOP as clarified by the State Govt. 5. That, the delay in filing the appeal was neither intentional nor suffers from any mala-fides but has rather is the result of the presently prevalent pandemic situation. It is, therefore, most humbly requested that the delay of 17 days may kindly be condoned and the appeal be heard and decided on its merits.” 3. On the other hand, the ld CIT-DR opposed the condonation application but could not rebut the facts submitted by the assessee before us for seeking condonation of delay.
We have considered the rival submissions as well as relevant material on record. As regards the sufficiency of cause for filing the appeals belatedly, it is settled principles of law that the Courts have to take liberal approach while interpreting the expression ‘sufficient cause’ for condonation of delay. In case of Collector, Land Acquisition Vs. Mst. Katiji (1987) 167 ITR 471, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has laid down the principle that the power to condone the delay provided under the statute is to enable the Courts to do substantial justice to the parties by disposing of the matter on merits, therefore, while considering the matters for condonation of delay, the law must be applied in a meaningful manner which subserves ends of justice and technical considerations should not come in the way of cause of substantial justice. There is no quarrel that the explanation and reasons
4 ITA 39/JP/2021_ M/s Balaji Charitable Trust Vs CIT(E) explained for delay must be bonafide and not merely a device to cover an ulterior purpose such as laches on the part of the litigant or an attempt to save limitation in the underhand way. If the party who is seeking condonation of delay has not acted in malafide manner and reasons explained are factually correct then the Court should be liberal in construing the sufficient cause and lean in favour of such party. A justice-oriented approach has to be taken while deciding the matter for condonation of delay. However, this does not mean that a litigant gets free right to approach the court at its will.
If we apply the settled principles as laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court as well as other courts on the facts of the present case we find that the assessee has explained cause of delay, therefore, in the facts and circumstances of the case, we condone the delay of 17 days in filing the present appeal and admit the appeal for hearing.
At the very outset, the ld. AR appearing on behalf of the assessee has submitted that the ld. CIT(E) has rejected the application of the assessee moved U/s 80G(5)(vi) of the Act in limini on an erroneous premise that the said application was withdrawn by the assessee/applicant. Whereas the fact of the matter is that the assessee had moved an application for seeking withdrawal of the application U/s 12A of the Act. In order to ascertain the
5 ITA 39/JP/2021_ M/s Balaji Charitable Trust Vs CIT(E) said fact, the report of the department was sought from the ld. CIT-DR and the ld. CIT-DR vide his reply dated 02/03/2022 has submitted a report wherein it has been categorically mentioned that the application filed by the assessee U/s 80G(5)(vi) of the Act has erroneously been rejected on the premise that the same was withdrawn by the assessee as on that very same date the assessee had withdrawn its application for seeking registration U/s 12AA of the Act, therefore, under that misconception, the ld. CIT(E) also rejected the application of the assessee moved U/s 80G(5)(vi) of the Act.
After having gone through the facts of the present case and after hearing the parties, we have reached to the conclusion that it is undisputed fact that the assessee had moved an application for seeking exemption U/s 80G(5)(vi) of the Act in Form 10G which was erroneously rejected ‘in limini’ by the ld. CIT(E) on the premise that the same was withdrawn by the assessee. The ld. CIT-DR has further submitted that the approval U/s 80G(5)(vi) of the Act can only be granted in the cases where as per provisions of Rule 11AA, the application for approval of any institution or fund under clause (vi) of sub-section (5) of Section 80G is moved in Form 10G and accompanied by copy of registration granted U/s 12A/12AA or copy of notification issued in 10(23C). In this regard, the ld.AR has placed on record copy of registration certificate U/s 12AA of the Act granted in favour of M/s Balaji Charitable Trust dated 13/06/1990 vide order No. 706. It was
6 ITA 39/JP/2021_ M/s Balaji Charitable Trust Vs CIT(E) also submitted that appropriate exemption U/s 80G was also granted vie order dated 31/03/2012 which was renewed from time to time and remained renewed up to 31/03/2021. Ld. AR has also drawn our attention to the fact that approval U/s 80G(5)(vi) of the Act has already been accorded to the assessee i.e. M/s Balaji Charitable Trust for subsequent years w.e.f. A.Y. 2022-23 to 2026-27 vide order of approval dated 24/09/2021. The same has already been placed on record at page No. 22- 23 of the paper book, therefore, considering the totality of the facts and circumstances of the case, we quash and set aside the impugned order dated 23/03/2021 passed by the ld. CIT(E) and restore back the matter to the file of ld. CIT(E) with a direction to pass a fresh order on an application filed by the assessee U/s 80G(5)(vi) of the Act while taking into consideration the above discussed documents. 8. In the result, this appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purpose. Order pronounced in the open court on 14th March, 2022. Sd/- Sd/- ¼jkBkSM+ deys'k t;arHkkbZ½ ¼lanhi x®lkÃa½ (RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI) (SANDEEP GOSAIN) ys[kk lnL;@Accountant Member U;kf;d lnL;@Judicial Member Tk;iqj@Jaipur fnukad@Dated:- /03/2022 *Ranjan आदेश की प्रतिलिपि अग्रेf’ात@ब्वचल वf जीम वतकमत वितूंतकमक जवरू vihykFkhZ@The Appellant- M/s Balaji Charitable Trust, Jaipur. 1.
7 ITA 39/JP/2021_ M/s Balaji Charitable Trust Vs CIT(E) izR;FkhZ@ The Respondent- The CIT(Exemptions), Jaipur. 2. vk;dj vk;qDr@ CIT 3. vk;dj vk;qDr¼vihy½@The CIT(A) 4. विभागीय प्रतिनिधि] आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण] जयपुर@क्त्ए प्ज्Aज्ए Jंपचनत 5. xkMZ QkbZy@ Guard File (ITA No. 39/JP/2021) 6. vkns'kkuqlkj@ By order, सहायक पंजीकार@Aेेज. त्महपेजतंत