Loading judgment…
Facts
The assessee filed an application for approval under Section 80G on 24.03.2022. The CIT(E) issued notices on 27.08.2022 and 08.09.2020, but the assessee failed to respond. Consequently, the application was rejected for non-compliance. The appeal was filed with a delay of 577 days.
Held
The Tribunal condoned the delay, finding sufficient cause as the electronically communicated order was inadvertently not noticed due to the email inbox not being frequently used. The Tribunal directed the CIT(E) to consider the application on merits, providing an opportunity to the assessee and not to dismiss it on technical grounds.
Key Issues
Whether the delay in filing the appeal against the rejection order under Section 80G is to be condoned, and if so, whether the application should be considered on merits.
Sections Cited
Section 80G(5), Section 12AA, Rule 11AA(2)
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, ‘B’ BENCH, CHENNAI
Before: HON’BLE SHRI MANU KUMAR GIRI
आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण ‘बी’’ �ायपीठ चे�ई म�। IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ‘B’ BENCH, CHENNAI माननीय �ी मनु कुमार िग�र, �ाियक सद� एवं माननीय �ी अिमताभ शु�ा . लेखा सद� के सम�। BEFORE HON’BLE SHRI MANU KUMAR GIRI, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND HON’BLE SHRI AMITABH SHUKLA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER आयकरअपील सं./ Revenue Bar Association, Vs. The Commissioner of Income Tax New No.115, First floor, Exemptions, Luz Church Road, Chennai. Mylapore, Chennai 600 004. [PAN: AAATR 3370G] (अपीलाथ�/Appellant) (��यथ�/Respondent) अपीलाथ� क� ओर से/ Appellant by : Shri D. Anand, Advocate ��यथ� क� ओर से /Respondent by : Shri V. Nandakumar, IRS, CIT. सुनवाई क� तार�ख/Date of Hearing : 22.08.2024 घोषणा क� तार�ख /Date of Pronouncement : 28.08.2024 आदेश / O R D E R MANU KUMAR GIRI (Judicial Member)
Aggrieved by rejection of application filed in Form No.10AB on 24.03.2022 for seeking approval under clause (ii) of first proviso to subsection (5) of Sec.80G vide impugned order dated 20.09.2022, the assessee is in further appeal before us.
The registry has noted delay of 577 days in filing the appeal. The affidavit filed by the Secretary of the assessee entity stating the reasons for delay in filing the appeal which are as under:- ‘’Affidavit of T. Vasudevan 1, T. Vasudevan, son of Mr. Thirumalai, Hindu aged about 58 years, having office at New No. 115 (First Floor), Luz Church Road, Mylapore, Chennai 600 004, do hereby solemnly and sincerely affirm and state as follows: I am the Secretary of the Petitioner / Entity and I am well acquainted with the facts of the belated filing of the appeal against the impugned order dated 20.09.2022 passed by the CIT(Exemptions), Chennai in dismissing the plea for recognition under Section 80G of the Act, thereby competent to swear to this affidavit.
-2- I state that the electronically generated impugned order dated 20.09.2022 was presumably sent to "revenuebar@gmail.com" and I state that the impugned order served electronically was not noticed as the inbox of the said Email ID being not frequently used. I state that the petitioner/Entity started planning for 2 day tax conference on 05.07.2024 and 06.07.2024 and I state that the preliminary work was commenced in my office during the last week of May, 2024. I state that my office had logged into the Income Tax portal account on 27.05.2024 to retrieve the details of the registration of the Petitioner / Entity in terms of Section 12AA of the Act and thereafter noticed the passing of the impugned ex-parte by the CIT(Exemptions), Chennai in dismissing the application filed in Form No. 10AB for the plea of final recognition under Section 80G. I state that the form filed for recognition under Section 80G of the Act was also erroneous as the Chartered Accountant pleaded for final recognition without having the provisional recognition. I state that effectively, the Chartered Accountant pleaded for provisional recognition by filing the form meant for final recognition in Form No. 10AB instead of Form No. 10A and in this regard, I state that the lack of opportunity to explain the facts and to amend any mistakes had resulted in the automated impugned order. I state that the mistake of not filing the appeal before this Hon'ble bench is neither willful nor deliberate but due to circumstances beyond the control of the appellant entity and hence I plead for condonation of delay in filing the appeal by 577 days for interfering with the ex-parte impugned order passed by the CIT(Exemptions), Chennai dated 20.09.2022 in the interest of justice’’.
Looking to the entire reasons for delay in filing the appeal, we consider the reasons as ‘sufficient cause’. In fact, the present assessee/Revenue Bar Association (‘RBA’ in short) has been imparting crucial role in the judicial delivery system and in the administration of justice. The assessee is expert body in taxation field doing noble service to the mankind. On the issue of section 80G approval, members of RBA have already been successfully argued in plethora of cases and got relief which has been upheld by the Hon’ble Jurisdictional High Court of Madras. Now question is why the assessee/RBA has not taken prompt step in its own case. We find from the reasons that the impugned order served electronically was inadvertently not noticed in inbox of email id ‘revenuebar@gmail.com’ by the concerned staff of bar. Before us, assessee demonstrated ‘sufficient cause’ in delay in filing the appeal which could not be termed as intentional or deliberate. Hence, we condone the delay and admit the appeal for adjudication.
Facts of the case leading to this appeal are as under: The applicant filed an online application on 24.03.2022 in Form No.10AB under clause (ii) of first proviso to section 80G(5) of the Income tax Act, 1961 (‘Act’ in short) seeking approval u/s 80G. While processing the application u/s 80G of the Act, the ld.CIT(E) issued notice dated 27.08.2022 and 08.09.2020 giving opportunity to the applicant / assessee to furnish the details as provided in Rule 11AA(2) of the Income Tax Rules, 1962. However, the applicant / assessee failed to respond the aforesaid notices. Consequently, the ld.CIT(E) could not process the application filed on 24.03.2022 in Form No.10AB under clause (ii) of first proviso to section 80G(5) and rejected the application for non-compliance. Now assessee is in appeal before us.
The ld.Counsel for the assessee submitted that the matter may kindly be remanded to the ld.CIT(E) for consideration a fresh the application filed on 24.03.2022 in Form No.10AB under clause (ii) of first proviso to section 80G(5). The ld.Counsel assured us that the assessee will comply with notices issued by the ld.CIT(E) in future. The ld.Counsel also placed on record a decision of the co- ordinate bench of Chennai Tribunal in the case of Save Shakti Foundation Vs CIT(E) [ITA No.923/Chny/2024 dated 26.04.2024] and contended that mere mistake in filing the form would not vitiate the claim of the assessee. Per contra, the ld.CIT- DR objected to the prayer of the ld.Counsel for the assessee.
We have heard the both parties, perused the record of the appeal papers and impugned order. In the fitness of aforesaid facts and genuine hardship to the assessee, we feel and direct the ld.CIT(E) to consider the application filed on 24.03.2022 in Form No.10AB under clause (ii) of first proviso to section 80G(5) on merits. Needless to say that the ld.CIT(E) will grand an opportunity to the assessee to prosecute the application filed on 24.03.2022 in Form No.10AB and decide expeditiously. We further direct that the ld.CIT(E) will not go by the technical or venial breach or error, if any, found in the application in Form No.10AB filed on 24.03.2022 while processing a fresh aforesaid application. In fact, such technical or venial breach or error does not forfeit the substantial right of the assessee instead it would be wastage of time in correcting such error.
In the result, the appeal stands allowed for statistical purpose. Order pronounced in open court on 28th day of August, 2024 at Chennai.
Sd/- Sd/- (अिमताभ शु�ा) (मनु कुमार िग�र) (AMITABH SHUKLA) (MANU KUMAR GIRI) लेखा सद� / ACCOUNTANT MEMBER �ाियक सद� / JUDICIAL MEMBER