Loading judgment…
No AI summary yet for this case.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, DELHI BENCH, ‘A’: NEW DELHI
Before: SHRI C.N. PRASAD & SHRI M. BALAGANESH
ORDER PER C.N. PRASAD, JM, These two appeals filed by the assessee are preferred against the order of the CIT (Exemptions) [hereinafter referred as “CIT(E)”] in denying registration under Section 12A and 80 G of the Income Tax Act respectively.
These appeals are filed with the delay of 41 days and the assessee has filed application for condonation of delay explaining the reason for the delay as under :-
It is submitted that the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemptions), Chandigarh passed order of rejection for the application filed in Form 10AB under sub-clause (vi)(8) of clause (ac) to sub-section (1) of section 12A of the Income Tax Act dated 10.12 2024 The said order was received by the appellant on 10.12.2024 and the due date of filing appeal was up to 08.02.2025. The appeal is being filed before the Hon'ble ITAT on 10.04.2025, resulting in a delay of 61 days beyond the specified date due to following reasons:
(i) That the said rejection order was given to CA. Dinesh Kumar, AR who was representing our case before the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemptions), Chandigarh on 10.12.2024 for preparing the appeal and filing before the Hon'ble ITAT. He assured that the appeal will be filed within due date.
(ii) Thereafter, the Authorized Representative did not inform us anything about this and we were under the bona fide belief that the appeal has been filed within specified time.
(iii) That when we have inquired from the Authorized Representative, Sh. Dinesh Kumar regarding the status of appeal, we came to know that the appeal against the rejection order of Ld. CIT(Exemptions), Chandigarh was not filed. He Informed that he and his team were completely occupied in Income Tax return filing activities in the month of December 2024. One of their staff kept took the documents for preparation of appeal and kept in his drawer and forgot to file the appeal.
(iv) Now, the appeal is being prepared and is being filed on 10.04 2025 3 In view of the above, it is submitted that the delay on filing was due to circumstances stated above which were beyond the control of the appellant and there was no intention or willful delay on the part of the appellant.
4 Reliance may be placed on the judgment of The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Collector, Land Acquisition v. Mst. Katiji & Ors.. (1987) 167 ITR 471 (SC) where it was held that the Courts should have a pragmatic and liberal approach while considering the petition for condonation of delay. Their Lordships have also held that when substantial justice and technical considerations are pitted against each other, the cause of substantial justice should be preferred.
4.1 Further, the Hon'ble ITAT Delhi in the case of Royal Airways Ltd. v. ADIT, (2006) 98 ITD 259 (Del) condoned the delay of 9 to 11 years in filing appeals by holding as under:
“20………. It is not a case where the assessee could expect to have derived any mileage on account of the matter getting delayed The delay in filing of appeals has caused prejudice to no one else except the assessee himself. When we keep these facts in mind, the bona fide of the assessee is not in doubt. Sufficient cause and bona fide go hand in hand if the assessee has acted bona fide, the reasons for delay in the absence of any material to the contrary, should be construed to be reasonable 3. 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.
The learned Counsel for the assessee at the outset stated that the learned CIT(E) rejected the application for registration under Section 12 A as well as the approval under Section 80G on the ground that the applications filed by the assessee were rejected earlier, and the present application of the assessee was cancelled as not maintainable.
Heard rival contentions and perused the orders passed by the Ld.CIT (E).
We observed from the orders passed by the Ld.CIT(E), the applications for registration under Section 12A as well as application for approval under Section 80G were rejected as non maintainable for the reason that on earlier two occasions similar applications filed by the assessee were rejected. We fail to understand under which provision of law the applications for registration u/s.12A and approval under Section 80G are not maintainable for sole reason that similar applications were rejected by the competent authorities.
In these facts and circumstances we feel it appropriate to restore all these applications i.e. registration under Section 12A as well as application for approval under Section 80G of the Act to the file of the Ld.CIT(E) with the directions to dispose of these applications on merits in accordance with law after providing adequate opportunity of being heard to the assessee.
In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced in the open court on 28.11.2025