THE VIRUDHUNGAR KSHATRIYA VIDHYASALA MANAGING BOARD,VIRUDHUNAGAR vs. CIT, EXEMPTIONS, CHENNAI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 1183/CHNY/2024Status: DisposedITAT Chennai11 July 2024Bench: SHRI MAHAVIR SINGH (Vice President), SHRI S.R. RAGHUNATHA (Accountant Member)4 pages

In favour of the Revenue: the assessee's appeal was dismissed. From the AI summary of this appeal.

AI SummaryDismissed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal, considering the reasons provided as reasonable. However, since the assessee had applied afresh under a new circular, the appeal was deemed infructuous.

What were the facts?

The assessee's appeal was filed 269 days late. The delay was attributed to a bonafide mistake in filing Form 10AB under the wrong section, leading to confusion and a delay in understanding the implications for registration. The assessee also applied afresh under a new CBDT circular.

What were the issues?

Whether the delay in filing the appeal should be condoned and whether the appeal has become infructuous due to a fresh application filed under a new circular.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 12A(1)(ac)(iii),Section 80G(5)(iv),Section 80G(5)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, ‘D’ BENCH, CHENNAI

Before: SHRI MAHAVIR SINGH & SHRI S.R. RAGHUNATHA

For Respondent: Shri A. Sasikumar, CIT
Hearing: 11.07.2024Pronounced: 11.07.2024

आदेश आदेश /O R D E R आदेश आदेश

PER MAHAVIR SINGH, VICE PRESIDENT:

1.

This appeal by the assessee is arising out of the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemption), Chennai dated 31.05.2023 rejecting Form No.10AB filed for seeking registration/approval/recognition u/s.12A(1)(ac)(iii) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter the ‘Act’). At the outset, it is noticed that appeal is barred by limitation of 269 days. As per Form 36, the - 2 - ITA No.1183/Chny/2024 assessee received order of the CIT(E) passed u/s.80G(5)(iv) of the Act dated 31.05.2023 on 31.05.2023 itself. The appeal has to be filed before the Tribunal on or before 30th July, 2023, but, actually it was filed only on 24.04.2024, thereby there was delay of 269 days.

The assessee filed condonation petition stating following reasons:

“In this regard, it is submitted that the Appellant Trust filed Form 10A on 24.05.2023 under wrorig clause 80G(5)(iv) instead of 80G(5)(iii) and therefore, the appellant was granted provisional registration for three years from 31.05.2023 instead of granting the same from 01.04.2023 thereby denying the benefit of 80G during the intervening period. The impact of grant of the provisional registration from 31.05.2023 was not properly understood and therefore no appeal was filed against the order granting provisional registration.

Subsequently, in order to make application for final registration, the Managing Trustee and the Chartered Accountant had approached the Counsel on Record for seeking advice. It was only at this juncture, the Managing Trustee was brought to the notice of the provisions of Section 80G for registration under new regime. The Managing Trustee immediately took steps and had filed the appeal with the help of Counsel on Record on 31.05.2023.

In such circumstances, the Appellant submits that the transition to electronic regime coupled with provisions pertaining to the new regime of registration (transition from old regime) would constitute the reasonable cause for the delay in filing the captioned appeal and pleads for condoning the small delay of 279 days in filing the appeal under consideration in the interest of justice for adjudicating the issues on merits.”

2.

When these were confronted, the Sr. DR opposed for condonation of delay. On going by the reasons stated, we consider the cause as reasonable and hence, delay is condoned and appeal is admitted.

- 3 - ITA No.1183/Chny/2024

3.

The only issue in this appeal of the assessee is as regards to order of CPC., Bengaluru in denying provisional recognition by overlooking the existence of registration in terms of section 80G(5) of the Act by virtue of which bonafide mistake committed by the assessee while uploading Form No.10AB for full recognition. For this, the assessee has raised various grounds which are argumentative, factual and exhaustive and hence these need not be reproduced.

4.

We have heard rival contentions and gone through facts and circumstances of the case. It is an undisputed fact that the assessee has applied for registration and already granted provisional registration u/s.80G(5) of the Act on 09.07.2021, which was restricted in granting provisional recognition again in the impugned order dated 31.05.2023. The counsel for the assessee only stated that the assessee has already applied for registration within the time limit extended by CBDT vide circular No.7/2024 dated 25.04.2024 extending the time limit upto 30-06-2024 and hence, he requested that matter can be restored back to the file of the CIT(E).

5.

On the other hand, the Sr.DR submitted that once the assessee has applied afresh in term of CBDT Circular No.7 of 2024 dated

- 4 - 25.04.2024 which is extended upto 30.06.2024, nothing survives in this appeal and this has become academic and infructuous.

6.

After hearing rival submissions and going through facts and circumstances of the case, we are of the considered view that since the assessee has applied afresh, the CIT(E) is directed to consider this application, de-hors this appeal and will decide the issue on merits taking that as a fresh application complied in lieu of extended date of CBDT circular no.7 of 2024 dated 25.04.2024.

Hence, this appeal is dismissed as infructuous.

7.

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed as academic.

Order pronounced in the open court on 11th July, 2024 at Chennai.

More judgments on Section 12A(1)(ac)(iii)

All 1,616 judgments and leading authorities on Section 12A(1)(ac)(iii) →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →