Loading judgment…
Facts
The assessee filed an appeal with a delay of 41 days against an order of the CIT(E) denying approval under Section 80G. The delay was attributed to the order not being communicated to the correct email ID and a transition in counsel.
Held
The Tribunal condoned the delay of 41 days, finding that the assessee had reasonable cause for the delay. The Tribunal held that the CIT(E) erred in denying re-application for 80G approval simply because it was rejected previously, as there is no statutory bar against such re-application.
Key Issues
Whether the delay in filing the appeal was justifiable? Whether the CIT(E) can deny re-application for 80G approval if previously rejected?
Sections Cited
80G, 253(5), 12A
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, DELHI BENCH, ‘B’: NEW DELHI
Before: SHRI C.N. PRASAD & SHRI M. BALAGANESH
ORDER
PER C.N. PRASAD, JM,
This appeal filed by the assessee is preferred against the order of the CIT (Exemptions) [herein after referred as “CIT(E)”] in denying approval under Section 80 G of the Income Tax Act.
This appeal is filed with the delay of 41 days and the assessee has filed application for condonation of delay explaining the reasons for the delay of 41 days in filing the appeal and the reasons were explained as under :-
“4….As regards the reason for above-said delay in filing of the appeal, it is respectfully submitted that the assessee got to know about the passing of the order by the Worthy CIT(E) very late. It is most respectfully submitted that: a. The appellant is a charitable society run by volunteers and trustees who are not well-versed in technical proceedings. For this reason, the appellant placed complete reliance on its earlier counsel, providing him with all documents, records, and papers necessary for effective representation. The appellant acted with bona fide belief that all legal remedies were being pursued in time. b. The earlier counsel actively represented the case before the Worthy CIT(E) and filed reply along with supporting documentary evidences. c. The impugned order dtd. 11.12.2024 was not communicated on the registered email ID of the appellant as per the Income Tax portal (svmnch@gmail.com). Instead, it was sent to another email ID (amitpuranmal@gmail.com), which did not belong to the appellant. Consequently, neither the appellant nor the counsel received intimation of the order in time. It was only after the lapse of almost 2 months that the counsel came to know of the passing of the impugned order. By this time, a substantial portion of the limitation period had already elapsed. d. Immediately upon learning about the impugned order, the appellant approached its counsel to take steps for filing the appeal before Hon'ble ITAT. However, since the earlier counsel was locally based in Narnaul and not practicing before Hon'ble ITAT, Delhi, he advised the appellant to engage another counsel experienced in Tribunal practice. e. The appellant requested the earlier counsel to suggest an alternative, but no immediate arrangement could be made. Thereafter, the appellant itself began approaching counsels independently and finally engaged CA Parikshit Aggarwal, practicing in Chandigarhas counsel for representation before Hon'ble ITAT. Once so engaged, the appeal was filed immediately after a delay of 41 days which occurred because of the above mentioned reasons.
It is respectfully submitted that the appellant at no stage intended to ignore or abandon its statutory rights. The delay was caused only because the order was sent to an incorrect email ID and due to transition from the earlier counsel to present counsel. The conduct of the appellant shows that it was constantly pursuing the matter, and as soon as it became aware of the rejection, it promptly took steps to file the present appeal.
6. The appellant has not gained any benefit, advantage, or ulterior motive by filing the appeal belatedly. The delay was purely technical, caused by circumstances beyond its control, and wholly unintentional.
In light of the above facts, it is humbly submitted that the delay of 41 days in filing the present appeal is nominal, unintentional, and occasioned solely due to reliance on counsel and the Department's use of a wrong email ID. The assessee has not derived any benefit by filing the appeal belatedly. A duly sworn & attested affidavit of the assessee, in this regard, is attached herewith.
In the interest of natural justice, it is prayed that the delay of 41 days in filing of the appeal may please be condoned by invoking Your Honour's power u/s 253(5) of the Act. We shall be highly obliged.
On going through the reasons explained by the assessee for the condonation of delay we are of the view that the assessee is prevented with reasonable cause in not filing the appeal in time and thus, the delay of 41 days in filing the appeal are condoned and the same are admitted for adjudication.
Coming to the merits learned Counsel for the assessee at the outset stated that the learned CIT(E) granted registration under Section 12A vide order dated 17.10.2023 to the assessee which is placed at page No.136 of the paper book and having granted registration u/s. 12A there is no reason to reject the approval sought for under Section 80G of the Act by the assessee.
5. The learned Counsel further submitted that the assessee furnished all information required by the learned CIT(E) and the learned CIT(E) without considering the details furnished by the assessee denied approval under Section 80G by stating that once application for approval under Section 80G is rejected, assessee cannot apply for the same again.
Heard rival submissions and perused the orders of the authorities below and materials placed before us. It is noticed that the reason given by Ld.CIT(E) for denial of approval under Section 80G was i.e. approval application for 80G was earlier denied and, therefore, the assessee cannot apply for the same again. We fail to understand this position especially when there is no bar in the Income tax Act for applying for approval under Section 80G even though it is rejected earlier. The learned CIT(E) cannot deny the assessee an approval under Section 80G on the ground that once approval for 80G is rejected the assessee cannot apply for it again. We also observed from the record before us that the assessee furnished various replies and documents as called for by the Ld. CIT(E) and request for approval which was summarily denied.
7. In the facts and circumstances of the case we restore this issue to the file of the learned CIT(E) who shall examine and consider the materials placed on record and adjudicate the application for approval under Section 80G in accordance with law after providing adequate opportunity of being heard to the assessee.
In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced in the open court on 28.11.2025